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

Comparison Overview

EFOR (formerly Mealys)EFOR (formerly Mealys)
VS
AccentureAccenture
EFOR (formerly Mealys)

EFOR (formerly Mealys)

24, Rue François Spoerry, Mulhouse, 68100, FR

Last Update: 03/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.mealys.fr
749/1000Moderate

Spécialiste reconnu en équipements industriels, MEALYS, désormais membre du groupe Efor, se positionne comme un partenaire stratégique dans le secteur du conseil et de l’ingénierie. Notre champ d’action s’étend à divers domaines clés : • Energies • Oil & Gas • Industr...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:14
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Accenture

Accenture

Grand Canal Harbour, Dublin 2, IE

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.accenture.com
681/1000Weak

Accenture helps the world’s leading enterprises reinvent by building their digital core and unleashing the power of AI to create value at speed for organizations across industries. Our strategy is to be the reinvention partner of choice for our clients and lead in the s...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:690,859
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EFOR (formerly Mealys)

EFOR (formerly Mealys)

-
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
Accenture

Accenture

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EFOR (formerly Mealys) in 2026.

Incidents

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

Accenture has 288.35% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - EFOR (formerly Mealys) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EFOR (formerly Mealys) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Accenture (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Accenture cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
EFOR (formerly Mealys)

EFOR (formerly Mealys)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Accenture

Accenture

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MLF1787063064
🔒 Incident : Breach
ACC1783556620
🔒 Incident : Breach
ACC1783463023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86304
SUMMARY

MojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor. parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAML2 calls Net::SAML2::Binding::POST->new with no cacert, cert_text or anchors argument, then passes the returned XML to Net::SAML2::Protocol::Assertion->new_from_xml with the IdP signing certificate as cacert. In Net::SAML2 before 0.86 that certificate guards only encrypted assertions, so the signature on an unencrypted assertion is checked against the certificate the response itself carries. An attacker starts a SAML login, then posts a response signed with a certificate of their own. The audience, InResponseTo and timestamp checks that follow are all satisfiable by the attacker, so the response authenticates any NameID it carries.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86232
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /pages/sup_del.php?type=supplier. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86231
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in mwiede jsch up to 2.28.5. Affected is the function getRevokedKeys of the file src/main/java/com/jcraft/jsch/KnownHosts.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument known_hosts results in improper check for certificate revocation. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.28.6 is able to address this issue. The patch is named 194a2f76a5c0f1c3f778565be3fd66bcafc42d23. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86228
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.3. This vulnerability affects the function exportXls of the file jeecg-boot/jeecg-boot-module/jeecg-boot-module-airag/src/main/java/org/jeecg/modules/airag/llm/controller/AiragModelController.java. Such manipulation of the argument credential leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.9.5 is able to resolve this issue. The name of the patch is a2be896f753936956ee6863b632b8e5a0231345c. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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: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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86227
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in valkey-io valkey up to 9.0.5/9.1.1. This affects the function kvstoreGetHashtable of the file src/kvstore.c. This manipulation of the argument didx causes out-of-bounds read. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 4691888e7fab3df128f0bde5750c9fde2ae552fa. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. Exploitation requires cluster mode plus attacker-controlled dump.rdb at startup (data-dir write access, replication feed, or a stored crafted RDB) - an attacker-position DoS at boot, not network pre-auth. The issue report was closed stating it "is worth fixing for the sake of memory safety… but I don't think it meets our bar for a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6