Kennedys
Company Details
Linkedin ID:
kennedys
Website:
Employees number:
2,894
Number of followers:
68,965
NAICS:
54111
Industry Type:
Homepage:
kennedyslaw.com
IP Addresses:
0
Company ID:
KEN_4374847
Scan Status:
In-progress
Kennedys Company CyberSecurity Posture
kennedyslaw.com
Every day we make a difference. With our deep sector knowledge for insurers, reinsurers, Lloyd’s Syndicates, public bodies and corporates, we understand the impact of proposed regulations and will advise you on the implications this will have on your business. Kennedys is an international law firm with expertise in litigation and dispute resolution, particularly in the insurance/reinsurance and liability industries. With over 2,900 people worldwide across 48 offices in the UK and Europe, Middle East, Asia Pacific, North America and Latin America, we have some of the most respected legal minds in their fields.
Kennedys A.I CyberSecurity Scoring
Kennedys Risk Score (AI oriented)Between 700 and 749
Kennedys
Updated:
- Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
- Insurance preferes TPRM score to calculate premium
Kennedys Global Score (TPRM)XXXX
Kennedys
- Instant access to detailed risk factors
- Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
- Vulnerabilities
- Findings
Kennedys Company CyberSecurity News & History
Past Incidents
1
Attack Types
1
Kennedys Law
Breach
Rankiteo Explanation
Attack with significant impact with customers data leaks
Description: Kennedys Law, a London-based law firm, accidentally leaked the email addresses of **194 individuals and law firms** involved in the Church of England’s (CoE) redress scheme for victims of abuse. The breach occurred due to **human error**, exposing recipients' details to all addressees in a mass email. Attempts to recall the emails were **only partially successful**, leaving victims—many of whom had suffered historical abuse by CoE officials—vulnerable to further harm. The firm reported the incident to regulatory bodies (Charity Commission, ICO, Solicitors Regulation Authority) and launched an internal investigation. The CoE, though not the data controller, expressed deep concern, emphasizing the breach’s potential to **erode trust** in the redress process. The exposed individuals included survivors of abuse by priests and bishops, compounding their trauma. The firm apologized unreservedly, acknowledging the **significant emotional and reputational impact** on those affected.
Kennedys Company Scoring based on AI Models
Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months
A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months
Underwriter Stats for Kennedys
Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)
Kennedys has 7.53% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)
Kennedys has 56.25% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident Types Kennedys vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)
Kennedys reported 1 incidents this year: 0 cyber attacks, 0 ransomware, 0 vulnerabilities, 1 data breaches, compared to industry peers with at least 1 incident.
Incident History — Kennedys (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Kennedys cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Kennedys Company Subsidiaries
Every day we make a difference. With our deep sector knowledge for insurers, reinsurers, Lloyd’s Syndicates, public bodies and corporates, we understand the impact of proposed regulations and will advise you on the implications this will have on your business. Kennedys is an international law firm with expertise in litigation and dispute resolution, particularly in the insurance/reinsurance and liability industries. With over 2,900 people worldwide across 48 offices in the UK and Europe, Middle East, Asia Pacific, North America and Latin America, we have some of the most respected legal minds in their fields.
Loading...
Kennedys Similar Companies
DLA Piper
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
Baker McKenzie
Integrated legal solutions to complex business challenges. The global business community is more interconnected than ever before. Opportunities and risks spill across different markets, sectors and areas of law. A connected perspective is essential in delivering business objectives while mitigating
.png)
Kennedys CyberSecurity News
November 19, 2025 11:30 AM
Regulatory evolution in Europe and growing pressure on companies – compliance as a strategic lever
Over the past decade, the European Union (EU) has consolidated its position as a global regulatory power. Recently, the EU has built a model...
October 21, 2025 07:00 AM
Global cyber attacks spark legal wave hitting smaller organizations hardest
No breach is too small as post-event litigation accelerates in the US.
October 21, 2025 07:00 AM
Cybersecurity expert offers blunt verdict on AWS outage
A small glitch served as a big wake-up call for the cloud world.
September 26, 2025 07:00 AM
Kennedy-King’s Tech Launchpad Named Chicago Innovation Awards Finalist
Kennedy-King College's Tech Launchpad has been named one of the Top 100 Finalists for the 24th Annual Chicago Innovation Awards.
September 25, 2025 11:14 AM
Cyber - market insights Q3 2024
Despite the significant downturn in ransomware attacks following the take-down of the Lockbit gang, one of the world's most sophisticated and successful...
September 19, 2025 07:00 AM
Article | Kennedy’s vaccine panel votes to delay hepatitis B vote
ATLANTA - A federal vaccine advisory panel selected by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will not vote on changing the CDC's...
September 16, 2025 07:00 AM
Kraft Kennedy’s Legion: Bringing Left of Boom Cybersecurity to MSPs, Podcast
Kraft Kennedy, founded in 1988, has long specialized in IT for the legal sector. Legion extends that expertise to the broader MSP community,...
August 29, 2025 07:00 AM
Article | Inside Kennedy’s effort to oust the CDC director
The push to oust Susan Monarez as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began in earnest around 11 a.m. on Monday.
August 11, 2025 07:00 AM
Article | Kennedy's MAHA strategy will not be released to the public immediately
Farmers, food manufacturers, chemical companies, anti-vaccine activists and MAHA moms — all waiting anxiously for the release of Health...
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore insights on cybersecurity incidents, risk posture, and Rankiteo's assessments.
Kennedys CyberSecurity History Information
Official Website of Kennedys
The official website of Kennedys is http://www.kennedyslaw.com.
Kennedys’s AI-Generated Cybersecurity Score
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys’s AI-generated cybersecurity score is 702, reflecting their Moderate security posture.
How many security badges does Kennedys’ have ?
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys currently holds 0 security badges, indicating that no recognized compliance certifications are currently verified for the organization.
Does Kennedys have SOC 2 Type 1 certification ?
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys is not certified under SOC 2 Type 1.
Does Kennedys have SOC 2 Type 2 certification ?
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys does not hold a SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Does Kennedys comply with GDPR ?
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys is not listed as GDPR compliant.
Does Kennedys have PCI DSS certification ?
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys does not currently maintain PCI DSS compliance.
Does Kennedys comply with HIPAA ?
According to Rankiteo, Kennedys is not compliant with HIPAA regulations.
Does Kennedys have ISO 27001 certification ?
According to Rankiteo,Kennedys is not certified under ISO 27001, indicating the absence of a formally recognized information security management framework.
Industry Classification of Kennedys
Kennedys operates primarily in the Law Practice industry.
Number of Employees at Kennedys
Kennedys employs approximately 2,894 people worldwide.
Subsidiaries Owned by Kennedys
Kennedys presently has no subsidiaries across any sectors.
Kennedys’s LinkedIn Followers
Kennedys’s official LinkedIn profile has approximately 68,965 followers.
NAICS Classification of Kennedys
Kennedys is classified under the NAICS code 54111, which corresponds to Offices of Lawyers.
Kennedys’s Presence on Crunchbase
No, Kennedys does not have a profile on Crunchbase.
Kennedys’s Presence on LinkedIn
Yes, Kennedys maintains an official LinkedIn profile, which is actively utilized for branding and talent engagement, which can be accessed here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/kennedys.
Cybersecurity Incidents Involving Kennedys
As of November 30, 2025, Rankiteo reports that Kennedys has experienced 1 cybersecurity incidents.
Number of Peer and Competitor Companies
Kennedys has an estimated 15,639 peer or competitor companies worldwide.
What types of cybersecurity incidents have occurred at Kennedys ?
Incident Types: The types of cybersecurity incidents that have occurred include Breach.
How does Kennedys detect and respond to cybersecurity incidents ?
Detection and Response: The company detects and responds to cybersecurity incidents through an containment measures with attempted email recall (partially successful), and remediation measures with internal investigation, remediation measures with regulatory reporting (ico, charity commission, sra), remediation measures with apology and communication with affected parties, and recovery measures with incorporating learnings immediately, and communication strategy with public apology, communication strategy with direct contact with affected individuals, communication strategy with statements to media..
Incident Details
Can you provide details on each incident ?
Title: Kennedys Law Email Data Leak Affecting Church of England Redress Scheme Applicants
Description: Kennedys Law, a London-based law firm, accidentally leaked the email addresses of 194 individuals and law firms who had requested updates about the Church of England (CoE) redress scheme for abuse victims. The leak occurred due to human error when email addresses were exposed to all recipients in a mass email. Attempts to recall the emails were only partially successful. The firm has apologized, launched an internal investigation, and reported the incident to regulatory bodies including the Charity Commission, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority (SRA).
Type: data breach
Attack Vector: human error (misuse of email CC/BCC fields)
What are the most common types of attacks the company has faced ?
Common Attack Types: The most common types of attacks the company has faced is Breach.
Impact of the Incidents
What was the impact of each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Data Compromised: Email addresses
Systems Affected: email system
Operational Impact: partial email recall failureregulatory reportinginternal investigation
Customer Complaints: ['hurt and concern expressed by affected individuals']
Brand Reputation Impact: loss of trust among abuse victimsnegative publicity for Kennedys Law and Church of England
Legal Liabilities: potential investigations by ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA
Identity Theft Risk: ['low (email addresses only)']
What types of data are most commonly compromised in incidents ?
Commonly Compromised Data Types: The types of data most commonly compromised in incidents are Email Addresses and .
Which entities were affected by each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Entity Name: Kennedys Law
Entity Type: law firm
Industry: legal services
Location: London, UK
Customers Affected: 194 individuals and law firms
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Entity Name: Church of England (CoE) Redress Scheme Applicants
Entity Type: victims/survivors group
Location: UK (primarily)
Customers Affected: 194
Response to the Incidents
What measures were taken in response to each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Incident Response Plan Activated: True
Containment Measures: attempted email recall (partially successful)
Remediation Measures: internal investigationregulatory reporting (ICO, Charity Commission, SRA)apology and communication with affected parties
Recovery Measures: incorporating learnings immediately
Communication Strategy: public apologydirect contact with affected individualsstatements to media
Data Breach Information
What type of data was compromised in each breach ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Type of Data Compromised: Email addresses
Number of Records Exposed: 194
Sensitivity of Data: moderate (personal contact information of abuse victims)
Personally Identifiable Information: email addresses
What measures does the company take to prevent data exfiltration ?
Prevention of Data Exfiltration: The company takes the following measures to prevent data exfiltration: internal investigation, regulatory reporting (ICO, Charity Commission, SRA), apology and communication with affected parties, .
How does the company handle incidents involving personally identifiable information (PII) ?
Handling of PII Incidents: The company handles incidents involving personally identifiable information (PII) through by attempted email recall (partially successful) and .
Ransomware Information
How does the company recover data encrypted by ransomware ?
Data Recovery from Ransomware: The company recovers data encrypted by ransomware through incorporating learnings immediately, .
Regulatory Compliance
Were there any regulatory violations and fines imposed for each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Regulations Violated: UK GDPR (potential), Data Protection Act 2018 (potential),
Legal Actions: investigations by ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA (pending),
Regulatory Notifications: reported to ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA
How does the company ensure compliance with regulatory requirements ?
Ensuring Regulatory Compliance: The company ensures compliance with regulatory requirements through investigations by ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA (pending), .
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
What lessons were learned from each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Lessons Learned: importance of email etiquette (CC/BCC usage), need for robust data handling procedures for sensitive cases, immediate recall actions may not fully mitigate leaks
What recommendations were made to prevent future incidents ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Recommendations: mandatory training on email best practices (CC/BCC), implementation of technical controls to prevent mass email leaks (e.g., forced BCC for bulk emails), enhanced oversight for communications involving vulnerable groups, regular audits of data handling proceduresmandatory training on email best practices (CC/BCC), implementation of technical controls to prevent mass email leaks (e.g., forced BCC for bulk emails), enhanced oversight for communications involving vulnerable groups, regular audits of data handling proceduresmandatory training on email best practices (CC/BCC), implementation of technical controls to prevent mass email leaks (e.g., forced BCC for bulk emails), enhanced oversight for communications involving vulnerable groups, regular audits of data handling proceduresmandatory training on email best practices (CC/BCC), implementation of technical controls to prevent mass email leaks (e.g., forced BCC for bulk emails), enhanced oversight for communications involving vulnerable groups, regular audits of data handling procedures
What are the key lessons learned from past incidents ?
Key Lessons Learned: The key lessons learned from past incidents are importance of email etiquette (CC/BCC usage),need for robust data handling procedures for sensitive cases,immediate recall actions may not fully mitigate leaks.
References
Where can I find more information about each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Source: The Register
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Source: Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) 2022 Report
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Source: Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance on email security
Where can stakeholders find additional resources on cybersecurity best practices ?
Additional Resources: Stakeholders can find additional resources on cybersecurity best practices at and Source: The Register, and Source: Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) 2022 Report, and Source: Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance on email security.
Investigation Status
What is the current status of the investigation for each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Investigation Status: ongoing (internal investigation by Kennedys Law; regulatory reviews by ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA)
How does the company communicate the status of incident investigations to stakeholders ?
Communication of Investigation Status: The company communicates the status of incident investigations to stakeholders through Public Apology, Direct Contact With Affected Individuals and Statements To Media.
Stakeholder and Customer Advisories
Were there any advisories issued to stakeholders or customers for each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Stakeholder Advisories: Church Of England Expressed Concern And Is Monitoring The Situation.
Customer Advisories: direct communication with affected individuals by Kennedys Law
What advisories does the company provide to stakeholders and customers following an incident ?
Advisories Provided: The company provides the following advisories to stakeholders and customers following an incident: were Church Of England Expressed Concern And Is Monitoring The Situation, Direct Communication With Affected Individuals By Kennedys Law and .
Post-Incident Analysis
What were the root causes and corrective actions taken for each incident ?
Incident : data breach KEN523082825
Root Causes: Human Error In Email Handling (Cc Instead Of Bcc), Lack Of Technical Safeguards To Prevent Mass Email Leaks,
Corrective Actions: Incorporating Learnings Immediately (Unspecified), Potential Policy/Training Updates,
What corrective actions has the company taken based on post-incident analysis ?
Corrective Actions Taken: The company has taken the following corrective actions based on post-incident analysis: Incorporating Learnings Immediately (Unspecified), Potential Policy/Training Updates, .
Additional Questions
Impact of the Incidents
What was the most significant data compromised in an incident ?
Most Significant Data Compromised: The most significant data compromised in an incident were email addresses and .
What was the most significant system affected in an incident ?
Most Significant System Affected: The most significant system affected in an incident was email system.
Response to the Incidents
What containment measures were taken in the most recent incident ?
Containment Measures in Most Recent Incident: The containment measures taken in the most recent incident was attempted email recall (partially successful).
Data Breach Information
What was the most sensitive data compromised in a breach ?
Most Sensitive Data Compromised: The most sensitive data compromised in a breach was email addresses.
What was the number of records exposed in the most significant breach ?
Number of Records Exposed in Most Significant Breach: The number of records exposed in the most significant breach was 194.0.
Regulatory Compliance
What was the most significant legal action taken for a regulatory violation ?
Most Significant Legal Action: The most significant legal action taken for a regulatory violation was investigations by ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA (pending), .
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
What was the most significant lesson learned from past incidents ?
Most Significant Lesson Learned: The most significant lesson learned from past incidents was immediate recall actions may not fully mitigate leaks.
What was the most significant recommendation implemented to improve cybersecurity ?
Most Significant Recommendation Implemented: The most significant recommendation implemented to improve cybersecurity was enhanced oversight for communications involving vulnerable groups, mandatory training on email best practices (CC/BCC), implementation of technical controls to prevent mass email leaks (e.g., forced BCC for bulk emails) and regular audits of data handling procedures.
References
What is the most recent source of information about an incident ?
Most Recent Source: The most recent source of information about an incident are Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) 2022 Report, Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance on email security and The Register.
Investigation Status
What is the current status of the most recent investigation ?
Current Status of Most Recent Investigation: The current status of the most recent investigation is ongoing (internal investigation by Kennedys Law; regulatory reviews by ICO, Charity Commission, and SRA).
Stakeholder and Customer Advisories
What was the most recent stakeholder advisory issued ?
Most Recent Stakeholder Advisory: The most recent stakeholder advisory issued was Church of England expressed concern and is monitoring the situation, .
What was the most recent customer advisory issued ?
Most Recent Customer Advisory: The most recent customer advisory issued was an direct communication with affected individuals by Kennedys Law.
.png)
Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)
Description
A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Access Data Using Our API
Get company history
curl -i -X GET 'https://api.rankiteo.com/underwriter-getcompany-history?linkedin_id=kennedys' -H 'apikey: YOUR_API_KEY_HERE'
RapidWhat Do We Measure ?
Incident
Finding
Grade
Digital Assets
Every week, Rankiteo analyzes billions of signals to give organizations a sharper, faster view of emerging risks. With deeper, more actionable intelligence at their fingertips, security teams can outpace threat actors, respond instantly to Zero-Day attacks, and dramatically shrink their risk exposure window.
These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:
Network Security
Identify exposed access points, detect misconfigured SSL certificates, and uncover vulnerabilities across the network infrastructure.
SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)
Gain visibility into the software components used within an organization to detect vulnerabilities, manage risk, and ensure supply chain security.
CMDB (Configuration Management Database)
Monitor and manage all IT assets and their configurations to ensure accurate, real-time visibility across the company's technology environment.
Threat Intelligence
Leverage real-time insights on active threats, malware campaigns, and emerging vulnerabilities to proactively defend against evolving cyberattacks.
Rankiteo is a unified scoring and risk platform that analyzes billions of signals weekly to help organizations gain faster, more actionable insights into emerging threats. Empowering teams to outpace adversaries and reduce exposure.
