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

Comparison Overview

Moss AdamsMoss Adams
VS
PwC UKPwC UK
Moss Adams

Moss Adams

999 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800, Seattle, WA, US, 98104

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.mossadams.com
748/1000Moderate

About Moss Adams (Now Baker Tilly) Moss Adams and Baker Tilly have joined forces to redefine accounting, tax, and advisory services for the middle market. United, we bring a legacy and commitment to helping our clients embrace what’s next. With more than 11,000 pr...

NAICS:5412
NAICS Definition:Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees:2,753
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
PwC UK

PwC UK

1 Embankment Place, London, London, GB, WC2N 6RH

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
782/1000Fair

Welcome to the PwC UK Linkedin page, bringing you updates and insights from our work and our people. We are founded on a culture of partnership with a strong commercial focus. This is reflected in our purpose: To build trust in society and solve important problems. O...

NAICS:5412
NAICS Definition:Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees:10,965
Subsidiaries:79
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Moss Adams

Moss Adams

-
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
PwC UK

PwC UK

-
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 Accounting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Moss Adams in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Accounting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PwC UK in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Moss Adams (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Moss Adams cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - PwC UK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PwC UK 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...
Moss Adams

Moss Adams

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MOS839072725
PwC UK

PwC UK

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86564
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in DPDK lib/vhost. Missing length validation before reading command_data in the virtio-net control-queue handler can cause an out-of-bounds read and a host process crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-55250
SUMMARY

Maravel, a PHP framework oriented towards dependency injection, prior to version 10.74.0 has a high-severity Token Replay Vulnerability arising from a structural lifecycle mismatch between stateless token validation engines and high-performance relational caching layers. Any application with low cache memory that causes premature eviction to free up memory and applications running macropay-solutions/maravel-framework that utilize tymon/jwt-auth for API token authentication and blacklist management or any other package that does the same may be affected. This architectural risk might also impact native Laravel applications utilizing cache tags under specific volatile or eviction-capped environments. tymon/jwt-auth automatically probes for cache tag support. If found, it forcefully wraps 14-day token blacklist entries (jti) inside a relational tymon.jwt tag. In environments where the O(1) Atomic Lazy Eviction model is active — either natively inside Maravel-Framework v20.x or manually backported into v10.x via the explicit DI container singletons provided in PR #104 (App\Cache\TaggedCache and App\Cache\TagSet) — a strict global tracking ceiling (Container::TAGGED_CACHE_TTL_CAP_SECONDS) of 7,200 seconds (2 hours) is enforced to secure the system against memory index bloat. This ceiling forcefully truncates the 14-day blacklist lifespan down to a maximum of 2 hours, after which individual tracking keys naturally expire and disappear from the active cache window. Furthermore, because the optimized engine implements a generational version matrix to achieve O(1) flush speeds, any programmatic or manual invocation of a tag flush or reset (e.g., Cache::tags([...])->flush()) instantly bumps the internal atomic master version pointer. This shifts the computed cryptographic composite hash (sha1($this->tags->getNamespace())) for all overlapping components, rendering the entire existing index immediately unreachable. Consequently, through either natural 2-hour expiration or an intervening tag flush execution (like the cache naturally cleaning old values to free up memory), the invalidation state records are entirely wiped out. Because the tokens' physical cryptographic signatures remain structurally valid for up to 14 days, stolen, hijacked, or legitimately logged-out tokens are instantly and silently resurrected across the entire API gateway, leaving the application critically vulnerable to widespread Token Replay Attacks. Because this issue is caused by an upstream architectural assumption within the tymon/jwt-auth package rather than a core defect inside the framework, there is no direct framework version upgrade that can safely bypass this lifecycle collision without breaking business cache recycling bounds. Maravel version 10.74.0 introduced a way to backport the new fixed tagged cache from 20.x into 10.x by resolving TagSet and TaggedCache from DI, which is how this latent architectural lifecycle vulnerability was discovered. Users must apply the decoupled configuration workaround outlined below. As a workaround, make sure that cache memory size does not generate early natural evictions from cache to free up space, deleting blacklisted jwt ids before they expire. Applications must decouple flat authentication vectors from the relational tagging subsystem. This forces token identifiers to write directly to the primary cache keyspace as flat, un-tagged key-value pairs where they securely retain their unclipped 14-day lifecycle.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53639
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, the `GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` and `PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` endpoints look up the payment request solely by the hash from the URL. No ownership check is performed against the authenticated customer or the underlying order. An attacker who obtains a payment request hash can read the payment request and, through the `payment` IRI in the response, recover the underlying order's `tokenValue` (which itself grants access to the full order, items, addresses, customer email, totals); and/or update the payment request payload (e.g. `target_path`, `after_path`). These fields are used by the front-end controller to redirect the user after the payment, so an attacker can flip them to an attacker-controlled URL and intercept the buyer. The hash is a UUID, so it has to be obtained out-of-band (logs, shared links, referrer headers, a co-located client), but once it is known no other credential is required, neither authentication nor knowledge of the order token. The creation endpoint `POST /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payment-requests` shares the same flaw: it resolves the target order solely from the `tokenValue` in the URL without verifying that the caller owns the order. The issue is fixed in versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. As a workaround, add a query extension that filters the `GET` operation; decorate the `PUT` state provider, guard the `POST` creation endpoint with a command-bus middleware, and wire the services.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53638
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, an authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the shop account API. The `PATCH /api/v2/shop/account/orders/{tokenValue}/payments/{paymentId}` endpoint, used by an authenticated shop customer to change the payment method of an order that has been placed but not yet paid (state `STATE_NEW`), does not validate that the chosen payment method is enabled for the order's channel. The equivalent checkout endpoint (`PATCH /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payments/{paymentId}`) correctly rejects out-of-channel payment methods with `HTTP 422`; the account endpoint silently accepts them and returns `HTTP 200`. An authenticated customer can therefore assign any globally enabled payment method to their own placed order, including methods that the store operator has explicitly excluded from that channel. The issue is fixed in versions: 2.0.18, 2.1.15, 2.2.6 and above. As a workaround, decorate the `Sylius\Bundle\ApiBundle\Changer\PaymentMethodChangerInterface` service in the application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53637
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Versions 2.0.0 through 2.0.17, 2.1.0 through 2.1.14, and 2.2.0 through 2.2.5 contain an improper workflow enforcement vulnerability in the cart `FormComponent`. When an order is completed while its cart page remains open, the stale LiveComponent does not detect the order’s changed state and continues to permit cart actions, allowing an authenticated customer to modify or permanently delete an already completed order. Versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6 contain a patch. As a workaround, deployments can copy the patched `FormComponent` into the application's `src/` directory and override the `sylius_shop.twig.component.cart.form` service definition to use that class.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8