Comparison Overview

McKeever Rowan Solicitors

VS

LPA Law Firm

McKeever Rowan Solicitors

8 Exchange Place, Dublin 1, undefined, D01 E925, IE
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

McKeever Rowan Solicitors, originally founded as McKeevers in 1898, is based in the heart of Dublin’s Financial District, the IFSC, Dublin Ireland. The firm is divided into three business units:- 1. Commercial and Corporate and Financial Services 2. Litigation and Employment 3. Commercial and Residential Property The firm counts among its clients Credit Institutions, Life and non Life Insurance Companies, Public and Private Institutions, multi-national Pharmaceutical and Petroleum Corporations, a number of IFSC corporate entities, Construction Companies as well as a substantial private client base. The firm has formed a multi disciplinary team to address the requirements of our financial services provider clients, ranging from initiating and defending proceedings in all courts, advising on the appointment of and the powers of Examiners, Receivers and Liquidators, advising on the validity and enforcability of security taken in Ireland, putting security in place in Ireland.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 22
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

LPA Law Firm

4 Besiki Street, Tbilisi, Georgia, 0108, GE
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

LPA Law Firm is a full-service law firm providing legal advice and counseling in broad aspects of business and financial transactions, corporate, civil and administrative law. We have the experience, knowledge and commitment necessary to address our clients’ most complex and challenging legal issues. With the main vision that commitment, excellence and integrity are core to success, we focus on building long lasting and mutually beneficial relationships with our clients. Out team of transaction lawyers and litigators serve single objective: the success of our clients. Through specialized experience in various fields of law, we are able to offer innovative and effective solutions that match clients’ short- and long-term business objectives.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 18
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/mckeeversolicitors.jpeg
McKeever Rowan Solicitors
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/lpa-law-firm.jpeg
LPA Law Firm
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
McKeever Rowan Solicitors
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LPA Law Firm
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for McKeever Rowan Solicitors in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LPA Law Firm in 2025.

Incident History — McKeever Rowan Solicitors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McKeever Rowan Solicitors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — LPA Law Firm (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPA Law Firm cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mckeeversolicitors.jpeg
McKeever Rowan Solicitors
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpa-law-firm.jpeg
LPA Law Firm
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

McKeever Rowan Solicitors company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LPA Law Firm company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, LPA Law Firm company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to McKeever Rowan Solicitors company.

In the current year, LPA Law Firm company and McKeever Rowan Solicitors company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LPA Law Firm company nor McKeever Rowan Solicitors company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither LPA Law Firm company nor McKeever Rowan Solicitors company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither LPA Law Firm company nor McKeever Rowan Solicitors company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors company nor LPA Law Firm company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors company nor LPA Law Firm company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

McKeever Rowan Solicitors company employs more people globally than LPA Law Firm company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm holds HIPAA certification.

Neither McKeever Rowan Solicitors nor LPA Law Firm 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