Comparison Overview

Kyndryl

VS

Conduent

Kyndryl

New York City, New York, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://kyndryl.com

We have the world’s best talent that design, run, and manage the most advanced and reliable technology infrastructure each day. Together, we think holistically about the health of these vital technology ecosystems. We are a focused, independent company that builds on our foundation of excellence by creating systems in new ways. Bringing in the right partners, investing in our business, and working side-by-side with our customers to unlock potential. We're raising the bar. Our experience speaks for itself: We have tens of thousands of highly skilled employees around the world serving most of the Fortune 100 companies. But our purpose is what drives us: Advancing the vital systems that power human progress. Because when a digital ecosystem is healthy, it can more readily adapt and support continuous growth and that opens up a world of possibility for everyone. Together, we are the heart of progress.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 56,311
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Conduent

100 Campus Dr, None, Florham Park, New Jersey, US, 07932
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 0 and 549
https://www.conduent.com

Conduent delivers digital business solutions and services spanning the commercial, government and transportation spectrum – creating valuable outcomes for its clients and the millions of people who count on them. We leverage cloud computing, artificial intelligence, machine learning, automation and advanced analytics to deliver mission-critical solutions. Through a dedicated global team of approximately 55,000 associates, process expertise and advanced technologies, our solutions and services digitally transform our clients’ operations to enhance customer experiences, improve performance, increase efficiencies and reduce costs. We drive progress in every process for our client including disbursing approximately $100 billion in government payments annually, enabling 2.3 billion customer service interactions annually, empowering millions of employees through HR services every year and processing nearly 13 million tolling transactions every day. Learn more at www.conduent.com

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 36,834
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kyndryl.jpeg
Kyndryl
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/conduent.jpeg
Conduent
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Kyndryl
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Conduent
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kyndryl in 2025.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

Conduent has 447.95% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Kyndryl (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kyndryl cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Conduent (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Conduent cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kyndryl.jpeg
Kyndryl
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/conduent.jpeg
Conduent
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Espionage (F5 source code theft), Financial gain (Conduent breach), Activism (hacktivist attacks on critical infrastructure)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Kyndryl company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Conduent company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Conduent company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Kyndryl company has not reported any.

In the current year, Conduent company has reported more cyber incidents than Kyndryl company.

Conduent company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Kyndryl company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Conduent company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Kyndryl company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Conduent company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Kyndryl company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Kyndryl company nor Conduent company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Kyndryl company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Conduent company.

Kyndryl company employs more people globally than Conduent company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Kyndryl nor Conduent holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References