Comparison Overview

OpSec Security

VS

Reply

OpSec Security

1857 Colonial Village Lane, Lancaster, PA, 17601, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01

OpSec Security is the global leader in protecting, authenticating, and enhancing our customers'​ brands, services and revenues. OpSec delivers a comprehensive suite of end-to-end solutions, including advanced physical security technologies, supply chain track and trace services, and online/e-commerce monitoring and analysis. OpSec protects the world’s most recognizable brands, with around 5,000 customers worldwide. Whether it is combating counterfeiting, gray market diversion, unauthorized e-commerce, or online and physical retail brand abuse, OpSec is dedicated to ensuring that your brand is always secure. OpSec Security: • Provides the broadest portfolio of overt and covert product authentication technologies • Secures the supply chain against fraud, over-production and diversion • Prevents counterfeits from being sold illegally online and protects brand’s IP APPLICANTS: Please contact [email protected] regarding any job posting. Applicants who apply through LinkedIn may not have their response handled in a timely manner.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 736
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Reply

C.so Francia, 110, Turin, undefined, 10143, IT
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Reply [EXM, STAR: REY] specialises in the design and implementation of solutions based on new communication channels and digital media. As a network of highly specialised companies, Reply defines and develops business models enabled by the new models of AI, big data, cloud computing, digital media and the internet of things. Reply delivers consulting, system integration and digital services to organisations across the telecom and media; industry and services; banking and insurance; and public sectors.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 16,329
Subsidiaries: 117
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/opsec-security-inc.jpeg
OpSec Security
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/reply.jpeg
Reply
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
OpSec Security
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Reply
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 OpSec Security in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Reply in 2025.

Incident History — OpSec Security (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OpSec Security cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/opsec-security-inc.jpeg
OpSec Security
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/reply.jpeg
Reply
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

OpSec Security company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Reply company has not reported any.

In the current year, Reply company and OpSec Security company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Reply company nor OpSec Security company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

OpSec Security company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Reply company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Reply company nor OpSec Security company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither OpSec Security company nor Reply company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Reply company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to OpSec Security company.

Reply company employs more people globally than OpSec Security company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds HIPAA certification.

Neither OpSec Security nor Reply holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A weakness has been identified in codingWithElias School Management System up to f1ac334bfd89ae9067cc14dea12ec6ff3f078c01. Affected is an unknown function of the file /student-view.php of the component Edit Student Info Page. This manipulation of the argument First Name causes cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. Other parameters might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 3.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

By providing a command-line argument starting with a semi-colon ; to an API endpoint created by the EnhancedCommandExecutor class of the HexStrike AI MCP server, the resultant composed command is executed directly in the context of the MCP server’s normal privilege; typically, this is root. There is no attempt to sanitize these arguments in the default configuration of this MCP server at the affected version (as of commit 2f3a5512 in September of 2025).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

A weakness has been identified in winston-dsouza Ecommerce-Website up to 87734c043269baac0b4cfe9664784462138b1b2e. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /includes/header_menu.php of the component GET Parameter Handler. Executing manipulation of the argument Error can lead to cross site scripting. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product implements a rolling release for ongoing delivery, which means version information for affected or updated releases is unavailable. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Qualitor 8.20/8.24. Affected by this vulnerability is the function eval of the file /html/st/stdeslocamento/request/getResumo.php. Performing manipulation of the argument passageiros results in code injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

A vulnerability was identified in Scada-LTS up to 2.7.8.1. Affected is the function Common.getHomeDir of the file br/org/scadabr/vo/exporter/ZIPProjectManager.java of the component Project Import. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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