Comparison Overview

Microsoft Security

VS

Sutherland

Microsoft Security

Seattle, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

Leading source for security innovation, industry insights, and news. Stay ahead of every shift in the security landscape and discover tools to help you secure your organization.​

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: None
Subsidiaries: 50
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
5

Sutherland

1160 Pittsford-Victor Road, Pittsford (Rochester), NY, US, 14534
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Artificial Intelligence. Automation. Cloud Engineering. Advanced Analytics. For Enterprises, these are key factors of success. For us, they’re our core expertise. We work with global iconic brands. We bring them a unique value proposition through market-leading technologies and business process excellence. At the heart of it all is Digital Engineering services – the foundation that powers rapid innovation and scalable business transformation. We’ve created 363 unique and independent inventions, 250 of which are AI-based and rolled up under several patent grants in critical technologies. Leveraging our advanced products and platforms, we drive digital transformation at scale, optimize critical business operations, reinvent experiences, and pioneer new solutions, all provided through a seamless “as-a-service” model. For each company, we provide new keys for their businesses, the people they work with, and the customers they serve. With proven strategies and agile execution, we don’t just enable change — we engineer digital outcomes.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 63,341
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft-security.jpeg
Microsoft Security
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/sutherland-global.jpeg
Sutherland
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
Microsoft Security
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sutherland
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Microsoft Security has 32.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

No incidents recorded for Sutherland in 2026.

Incident History — Microsoft Security (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Microsoft Security cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Sutherland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft-security.jpeg
Microsoft Security
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Infostealing Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Account Takeovers, Ransomware Attacks
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Infostealing Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Improper token validation in Azure SSO
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sutherland-global.jpeg
Sutherland
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft of Computers
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Sutherland company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Microsoft Security company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Microsoft Security company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Sutherland company.

In the current year, Microsoft Security company has reported more cyber incidents than Sutherland company.

Microsoft Security company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Sutherland company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Sutherland company and Microsoft Security company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Microsoft Security company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Sutherland company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Microsoft Security company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Sutherland company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft Security company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sutherland company.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Sutherland holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H