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...

Swisscom
Alte Tiefenaustrasse 6, Worblaufen, 3048, CH
Last Update: 07/10/2026
As No. 1, we inspire people in the connected world. With the latest technologies and innovations, together we have the opportunity to shape the future. To do this, we are and act trustworthy, committed and curious. Are you with us? Join us on this exciting journey and ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova)







Swisscom






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)
Swisscom has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
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 - Swisscom (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Swisscom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Lynx Technology Partners (now Arcova)

Swisscom
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.