Comparison Overview

NCS Group

VS

Avanade

NCS Group

Singapore, 5 Ang Mo Kio Street 62, NCS Hub, Singapore, SG, 569141
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

NCS, a subsidiary of Singtel Group, is a leading technology services firm with presence in Asia Pacific and partners with governments and enterprises to advance communities through technology. Combining the experience and expertise of its 14,000-strong team across 56 specialisations, NCS provides differentiated and end-to-end technology services to clients with its NEXT capabilities in digital, data, cloud and platforms, as well as core offerings in application, infrastructure, engineering and cybersecurity. NCS also believes in building a strong partner ecosystem with leading technology players, research institutions and start-ups to support open innovation and co-creation. For more information, visit ncs.co.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 12,282
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Avanade

1191 2nd Ave, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Avanade is the world’s leading expert on Microsoft. Trusted by over 7,000 clients worldwide, we deliver AI-driven solutions that unlock the full potential of people and technology, optimize operations, foster innovation and drive growth. As Microsoft’s Global SI Partner we combine global scale with local expertise in AI, cloud, data analytics, cybersecurity, and ERP to design solutions that prioritize people and drive meaningful impact. We champion diversity, inclusion, and sustainability, ensuring our work benefits society and business.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 17,197
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ncs-group.jpeg
NCS Group
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/avanade.jpeg
Avanade
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
NCS Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Avanade
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for NCS Group in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Avanade in 2026.

Incident History — NCS Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NCS Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Avanade cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ncs-group.jpeg
NCS Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 02/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Vulnerability in third-party software (Accellion’s FTA)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/avanade.jpeg
Avanade
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Avanade company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to NCS Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

NCS Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Avanade company has not reported any.

In the current year, Avanade company and NCS Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Avanade company nor NCS Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

NCS Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Avanade company has not reported such incidents publicly.

NCS Group company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Avanade company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither NCS Group company nor Avanade company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Avanade company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to NCS Group company.

Avanade company employs more people globally than NCS Group company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds HIPAA certification.

Neither NCS Group nor Avanade holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N