Comparison Overview

McKinsey & Company

VS

Xerox

McKinsey & Company

None, None, None, None, US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 800 and 849

McKinsey & Company is a global management consulting firm. We are the trusted advisor to the world's leading businesses, governments, and institutions. We work with leading organizations across the private, public and social sectors. Our scale, scope, and knowledge allow us to address problems that no one else can. We have deep functional and industry expertise as well as breadth of geographical reach. We are passionate about taking on immense challenges that matter to our clients and, often, to the world. We work with our clients as we do with our colleagues. We build their capabilities and leadership skills at every level and every opportunity. We do this to help build internal support, get to real issues, and reach practical recommendations. We bring out the capabilities of clients to fully participate in the process and lead the ongoing work.

NAICS: 5416
NAICS Definition: Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees: 38,713
Subsidiaries: 46
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Xerox

201 Merritt 7, Norwalk, Connecticut, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 650 and 699

Xerox has been redefining the workplace experience for over a century. As a services-led, software-enabled company, we power today’s hybrid workplace through advanced print, digital, and AI-driven technologies. In 2025, Xerox acquired Lexmark—expanding our global footprint, strengthening service capabilities, and equipping us to deliver an even broader portfolio of workplace technologies to our clients. Today, we continue our legacy of innovation to deliver client-centric, digitally driven solutions that meet the needs of a global, distributed workforce. Whether in offices, classrooms, or hospitals, we help our clients thrive in a constantly evolving business landscape.

NAICS: 5416
NAICS Definition: Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees: 50,167
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mckinsey.jpeg
McKinsey & Company
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/xerox.jpeg
Xerox
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
McKinsey & Company
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Xerox
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for McKinsey & Company in 2025.

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Xerox in 2025.

Incident History — McKinsey & Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McKinsey & Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Xerox cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mckinsey.jpeg
McKinsey & Company
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/xerox.jpeg
Xerox
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

McKinsey & Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Xerox company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Xerox company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas McKinsey & Company company has not reported any.

In the current year, Xerox company and McKinsey & Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Xerox company nor McKinsey & Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Xerox company has disclosed at least one data breach, while McKinsey & Company company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Xerox company nor McKinsey & Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither McKinsey & Company company nor Xerox company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

McKinsey & Company company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Xerox company.

Xerox company employs more people globally than McKinsey & Company company, reflecting its scale as a Business Consulting and Services.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox holds HIPAA certification.

Neither McKinsey & Company nor Xerox 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