Comparison Overview

Johnson Attorneys Group

VS

DLA Piper

Johnson Attorneys Group

100 Bayview Circle, Newport Beach, California, 92660, US
Last Update: 2025-03-11 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

PERSONAL INJURY AND ACCIDENT LAWYER Attorney James Johnson has handled thousands of personal injury cases over the years representing people who are hurt in car accidents, motorcycle crashes, truck accidents, pedestrian accidents, bicycle accidents, dog bites and more.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, England, EC1A 4HT, GB
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver exceptional outcomes on cross-border projects, critical transactions and high-stakes disputes. Every day we help trailblazing organizations seize business opportunities and successfully manage growth and change at speed. Through our pro bono work and community investment around the world, we help create a more just and sustainable future. Visit dlapiper.com to discover more.

NAICS: 54111
NAICS Definition: Offices of Lawyers
Employees: 13,402
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-attorneys-group.jpeg
Johnson Attorneys Group
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Johnson Attorneys Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DLA Piper
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Johnson Attorneys Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Johnson Attorneys Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson Attorneys Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-attorneys-group.jpeg
Johnson Attorneys Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Johnson Attorneys Group company and DLA Piper company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, DLA Piper company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Johnson Attorneys Group company.

In the current year, DLA Piper company and Johnson Attorneys Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Johnson Attorneys Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Johnson Attorneys Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Johnson Attorneys Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Johnson Attorneys Group company nor DLA Piper company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

DLA Piper company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Johnson Attorneys Group company.

DLA Piper company employs more people globally than Johnson Attorneys Group company, reflecting its scale as a Law Practice.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Formbricks is an open source qualtrics alternative. Prior to version 4.0.1, Formbricks is missing JWT signature verification. This vulnerability stems from a token validation routine that only decodes JWTs (jwt.decode) without verifying their signatures. Both the email verification token login path and the password reset server action use the same validator, which does not check the tokenโ€™s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victimโ€™s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victimโ€™s password. This issue has been patched in version 4.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

Apollo Studio Embeddable Explorer & Embeddable Sandbox are website embeddable software solutions from Apollo GraphQL. Prior to Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified. The vulnerability arises from missing origin validation in the client-side code that handles window.postMessage events. A malicious website can send forged messages to the embedding page, causing the victimโ€™s browser to execute arbitrary GraphQL queries or mutations against their GraphQL server while authenticated with the victimโ€™s cookies. This issue has been patched in Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /consulta-dispensas. Such manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

A weakness has been identified in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected is an unknown function of the file /module/Api/aluno. This manipulation of the argument aluno_id causes improper authorization. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Tencent WeKnora 0.1.0. This impacts the function testEmbeddingModel of the file /api/v1/initialization/embedding/test. The manipulation of the argument baseUrl results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The vendor responds: "We have confirmed that the issue mentioned in the report does not exist in the latest releases".

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X