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

Comparison Overview

Odgers Berndtson NederlandOdgers Berndtson Nederland
VS
McKinsey & CompanyMcKinsey & Company
Odgers Berndtson Nederland

Odgers Berndtson Nederland

Beethovenstraat 531, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1083 HK , NL

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

We are a global executive search, talent assessment and leadership development firm based in Amsterdam. We have the scale, reach and experience to serve all major markets but we remain lean, flexible and innovative. Being a challenger is at the heart of our cultural DN...

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
McKinsey & Company

McKinsey & Company

US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.mckinsey.com
815/1000Good

McKinsey & Company is a global management consulting firm. We are the trusted advisor to the world's leading businesses, governments, and institutions. We work with leading organizations across the private, public and social sectors. Our scale, scope, and knowledge ...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:38,633
Subsidiaries:44
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Odgers Berndtson Nederland

Odgers Berndtson Nederland

-
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
McKinsey & Company

McKinsey & Company

-
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 Odgers Berndtson Nederland in 2026.

Incidents

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

McKinsey & Company has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Odgers Berndtson Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Odgers Berndtson Nederland 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 - McKinsey & Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McKinsey & Company 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...
Odgers Berndtson Nederland

Odgers Berndtson Nederland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
McKinsey & Company

McKinsey & Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MCK1773109656

FAQ

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