Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

ManpowerGroup DeutschlandManpowerGroup Deutschland
VS
The Adecco GroupThe Adecco Group
ManpowerGroup Deutschland

ManpowerGroup Deutschland

Kaiserstraße 10, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, 60311, DE

Last Update: 03/03/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

ManpowerGroup: We Power the Future of Work Mit mehr als 27.000 Mitarbeitern und einem Umsatz von 921 Millionen Euro zählt die ManpowerGroup zu den drei größten Personaldienstleistern in Deutschland. Unter dem Dach der Unternehmensgruppe agieren an bundesweit 360 Stando...

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:734
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The Adecco Group

The Adecco Group

Bellerivestrasse 30, Zurich, 8008, CH

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.adeccogroup.com
766/1000Fair

The Adecco Group is a world leading talent company. Our purpose is making the future work for everyone. Through our three global business units - Adecco, Akkodis and LHH - across 60 countries, we enable sustainable and lifelong employability for individuals, deliver dig...

NAICS:541612
NAICS Definition:Human Resources Consulting Services
Employees:22,339
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ManpowerGroup Deutschland

ManpowerGroup Deutschland

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
The Adecco Group

The Adecco Group

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Human Resources Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ManpowerGroup Deutschland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Human Resources Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Adecco Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ManpowerGroup Deutschland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ManpowerGroup Deutschland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - The Adecco Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Adecco Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
ManpowerGroup Deutschland

ManpowerGroup Deutschland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The Adecco Group

The Adecco Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland company and The Adecco Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland and The Adecco Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland and The Adecco Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - ManpowerGroup Deutschland or The Adecco Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - ManpowerGroup Deutschland or The Adecco Group ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland and The Adecco Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between ManpowerGroup Deutschland and The Adecco Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2