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

Comparison Overview

NoA ConsultingNoA Consulting
VS
ProtivitiProtiviti
NoA Consulting

NoA Consulting

Oslo - Stockholm - Copenhagen, NO, Oslo - Stockholm - Copenhagen, NO

Last Update: 26/10/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://noaconsulting.com
752/1000Fair

NoA Consulting is part of NoA (The North Alliance) - the leading creative and tech family in the Nordics. With over 1200 experts across offices in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Poland, we are specialized in creating customer-driven growth.

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Protiviti

Protiviti

2884 Sand Hill Rd, Suite 200, Menlo Park, California, US, 94025

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.protiviti.com
782/1000Fair

Protiviti (www.protiviti.com) is a global consulting firm that delivers deep expertise, objective insights, a tailored approach and unparalleled collaboration to help leaders confidently face the future. Protiviti and its independent and locally owned member firms provi...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:13,544
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NoA Consulting

NoA Consulting

-
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
Protiviti

Protiviti

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NoA Consulting in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Protiviti in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NoA Consulting (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NoA Consulting cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Protiviti (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Protiviti cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
NoA Consulting

NoA Consulting

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Protiviti

Protiviti

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2