Comparison Overview

Lawgical

VS

Pittman Law Group

Lawgical

3120 Blake Street, Denver, 80205, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

LAWgical, an InfoTrack company, is the holding company of numerous legal-related brands. We primarily focus on media, software and marketing solutions with marquee names such as Legal Talk Network, ServeNow.com, ServeManager, PInow.com and more. Our team consists of bright and talented business and technology professionals with the goal of developing products that make a difference to our users and the legal community.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 45
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Pittman Law Group

1028 E Park Ave, Tallahassee, FL 32301, US
Last Update: 2025-11-24

The Pittman Law Group (PLG), a Professional Liability Company, was founded in 2001 and provides legal and governmental representation within the State of Florida. Our firm specializes in legislative issues within the jurisdiction of Florida regulatory agencies and Cabinet departments. PLG attorneys also participate in rule-making proceedings and administrative litigation. Our focus at PLG is “the client” and we represent some of the ‘top interests’ in the State of Florida. Our law clients are serious about accomplishing objectives and look to create long lasting relationships with key players in the political arena. Our presence in Tallahassee allows for strategic monitoring of governmental activities and direct access to state legislators, agency officials and their staff. We are positioned to effectuate state ad hoc committees and task forces for aggressive representation of our clients. We ensure our clients meet their objectives by using the perfect guide and the perfect strategy.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 19
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lawgical.jpeg
Lawgical
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/espmedia-corporation.jpeg
Pittman Law Group
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
Lawgical
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pittman Law Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lawgical in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pittman Law Group in 2025.

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

Lawgical cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Pittman Law Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pittman Law Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lawgical.jpeg
Lawgical
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/espmedia-corporation.jpeg
Pittman Law Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Lawgical company and Pittman Law Group company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Pittman Law Group company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lawgical company.

In the current year, Pittman Law Group company and Lawgical company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Pittman Law Group company nor Lawgical company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Pittman Law Group company nor Lawgical company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Pittman Law Group company nor Lawgical company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lawgical company nor Pittman Law Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Lawgical company nor Pittman Law Group company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Lawgical company employs more people globally than Pittman Law Group company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lawgical nor Pittman Law Group holds GDPR certification.

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