Comparison Overview

Michael Page

VS

Manpower

Michael Page

PageGroup, Addlestone, Weybridge, KT15 2QW, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-26

Welcome to the Michael Page global company profile. Michael Page has five decades of expertise in professional services recruitment. We were established in London in 1976, and over this period we've grown organically to become one of the best-known and most respected consultancies, with an office network spanning six continents. While size has its advantages, it doesn't define us - the nature of our organic growth means that each new office is integrated into the region that it serves. It also means that as an employer looking to hire, or as a candidate aiming to grow your career you have the best of both worlds; a team that understands the market and geography you operate in, plus the resources and expertise of an international network at your disposal. Our teams are broken down to focus on industry, assignment type, salary level and location, so your hiring requirements or job search will all be handled by a specialist who knows your sector inside-out. We are confident that our expertise can add value to your recruitment or job search process – get in touch to find out more.

NAICS: 5613
NAICS Definition: Employment Services
Employees: 11,324
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Manpower

100 Manpower Place, None, Milwaukee, WI, US, 53212
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 700 and 749

Manpower is the global leader in contingent and permanent recruitment workforce solutions. We provide the agility businesses need with a continuum of staffing solutions. By leveraging our trusted brands, we have built a deeper talent pool to provide our clients access to the people they need, faster. We effectively assess and develop skills, keeping our associates ahead of the curve, so they can get the jobs done each time, every time.

NAICS: 5613
NAICS Definition: Employment Services
Employees: 28,793
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michael-page.jpeg
Michael Page
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/manpower-.jpeg
Manpower
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
Michael Page
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Manpower
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Michael Page in 2025.

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Manpower in 2025.

Incident History — Michael Page (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michael Page cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Manpower cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michael-page.jpeg
Michael Page
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/manpower-.jpeg
Manpower
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Michael Page company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Manpower company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Manpower company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Michael Page company has not reported any.

In the current year, Manpower company and Michael Page company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Manpower company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Michael Page company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Manpower company nor Michael Page company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Manpower company nor Michael Page company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Michael Page company nor Manpower company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Michael Page company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Manpower company.

Manpower company employs more people globally than Michael Page company, reflecting its scale as a Staffing and Recruiting.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Michael Page nor Manpower holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H