Comparison Overview
Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova)

Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova)
244 5th Avenue, New York,, 10001, US
Last Update: 02/10/2026
Lynx Technology Partners is now part of Arcova. Founded in 2009, Lynx Technology Partners built a strong reputation for excellence in cybersecurity, compliance, and strategic advisory services. The firm was known for its disciplined execution and relationship-driven ap...

Akkodis
N/A
Last Update: 07/09/2026
Akkodis is a global digital engineering company and Smart Industry leader. We enable clients to advance in their digital transformation with Talent, Academy, Consulting, and Solutions services. Our 50,000 experts combine best-in-class technologies, R&D, and deep sector ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova)







Akkodis






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova) in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Akkodis in 2026.
Incident History - Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova) (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Akkodis (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Akkodis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova)

Akkodis
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.