Comparison Overview

Nielsen

VS

TOTVS

Nielsen

675 6th Ave, New York, 10011, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Nielsen shapes the world’s media and content as a global leader in audience insights, data and analytics. Through our understanding of people and their behaviors across all channels and platforms, we empower our clients with independent and actionable intelligence so they can connect and engage with their audiences—now and into the future. Nielsen operates around the world in more than 55 countries. Learn more at http://nlsn.co/6006JMfty and connect with us on social media (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram).

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 29,059
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

TOTVS

Av Braz Leme, 1000, Sao Paulo, 02511-900, BR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Olá, somos a TOTVS! A maior empresa de tecnologia do Brasil. 🤓 Líder absoluta em sistemas e plataformas para empresas, a TOTVS possui mais de 70 mil clientes. Indo muito além do ERP, oferece tecnologia completa para digitalização dos negócios por meio de 3 unidades de negócio: - Gestão: ERPs, soluções cross e sistemas especializados visando garantir mais produtividade, eficiência e governança para os negócios; 💻 - Techfin: ERP Banking que oferece soluções de crédito B2B e pagamento, integrados a sistemas de gestão; 💸 - RD Station: Ferramentas digitais de marketing, vendas e relacionamento, para empresas de todos os portes e segmentos. 🚀 Nos últimos 5 anos, a companhia investiu R$3 bilhões em pesquisa e desenvolvimento para atender de maneira cada vez mais especializada empresas de 12 segmentos da economia, tornando-se um trusted advisor de seus clientes. A TOTVS é uma potência tecnológica que apoia a evolução de empresas de norte a sul do país. O Brasil, que faz, faz com TOTVS.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 16,566
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nielsen.jpeg
Nielsen
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/totvs.jpeg
TOTVS
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
Nielsen
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
TOTVS
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nielsen in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TOTVS in 2026.

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

Nielsen cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

TOTVS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nielsen.jpeg
Nielsen
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/totvs.jpeg
TOTVS
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, TOTVS company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Nielsen company.

In the current year, TOTVS company and Nielsen company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither TOTVS company nor Nielsen company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither TOTVS company nor Nielsen company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither TOTVS company nor Nielsen company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Nielsen company nor TOTVS company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Nielsen company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to TOTVS company.

Nielsen company employs more people globally than TOTVS company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Nielsen nor TOTVS 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