Comparison Overview

Parkhill

VS

Transport for London

Parkhill

None
Last Update: 2025-03-06 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

Parkhill provides first class assurance services which ensure optimal use of public resources. From our inception in 1992 as an in-house NHS internal audit service, we have grown to be one of the largest public sector audit and assurance specialists in the UK. Our range of specialist services enables clients to run well governed, high performing organisations. We advise clients on their systems and practices in key areas including internal audit, counter fraud, IT audit forensic technology, policy and procedure development and risk management. Our impact extends far beyond processes and controls to add wider value to your organisation by identifying opportunities as well as risks. Through our executive resourcing service and consultancy services, we provide talented people to turn your strategic aspirations into reality. Parkhill is an HFMA Corporate Partner, reflecting our long-standing commitment to supporting the NHS and its finance community. For further information about Parkhill please visit www.parkhill.org.uk or call 020 88869 7400.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Transport for London

5 Endeavour Square, Westfield Avenue,, London , GB, E20 1JN
Last Update: 2025-09-18 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

Every day, we help millions of people to make journeys across London: By Tube, bus, tram, car, bike – and more. People don’t associate us with journeys by river, on foot or via the air, but we help with that, too. Getting people to where they need to go has been our business for over 100 years, and it shows. We’re leaders in our field, and no other city’s transport system is quite as recognisable: Red buses, black taxis, Tube trains and roundels have become icons in their own right. Our main job is to keep the city moving, working and growing but to do that, we have to listen. Constant improvements across the network are fuelled by feedback and comments from customers, as well as work within communities, representative groups, businesses and other London transport stakeholders. But our progress also depends on technology and data. With the future at our fingertips, we’ve already used it to revolutionise travel payments (think Oyster and contactless payment cards), and improved travel information. Tech and data is essential, not just to our future, but to others’: third parties use our data to power apps and services vital to customer journeys. So what’s next? As well as continuing to deliver Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan’s strategy and commitments on transport, our programme of capital investments is still one of the largest. We launched the Elizabeth line, we’re modernising services and stations and making travel safer for all.

NAICS: 8135
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 18,194
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Parkhill
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/transport-for-london.jpeg
Transport for London
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
Parkhill
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Transport for London
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Parkhill in 2025.

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Average (This Year)

Transport for London has 163.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Parkhill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Transport for London (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transport for London cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Parkhill
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/transport-for-london.jpeg
Transport for London
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (likely), Network Intrusion, Exploitation of Vulnerabilities
Motivation: Financial Gain, Extortion, Disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Transport for London company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Parkhill company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Transport for London company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Parkhill company has not reported any.

In the current year, Transport for London company has reported more cyber incidents than Parkhill company.

Neither Transport for London company nor Parkhill company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Transport for London company nor Parkhill company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Transport for London company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Parkhill company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Parkhill company nor Transport for London company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Transport for London company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Parkhill company.

Transport for London company employs more people globally than Parkhill company, reflecting its scale as a Non-profit Organizations.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Parkhill nor Transport for London holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/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