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

Comparison Overview

Payment Muse Consulting LimitedPayment Muse Consulting Limited
VS
McKinsey & CompanyMcKinsey & Company
Payment Muse Consulting Limited

Payment Muse Consulting Limited

Limassol, CY

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://paymentmuse.com
589/1000Very Poor

UNLOCK GLOBAL PAYMENTS POTENTIAL WITH PAYMENT MUSE CONSULTING! What we do? 1. Streamline your payment procedures by identifying inefficiencies and optimizing
your payment workflow 2. Finding the perfect payment methods, providers and platforms tailored to your business...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:2
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
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
Payment Muse Consulting Limited

Payment Muse Consulting Limited

-
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 Payment Muse Consulting Limited in 2026.

Incidents

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

McKinsey & Company has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Payment Muse Consulting Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Payment Muse Consulting Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Payment Muse Consulting Limited

Payment Muse Consulting Limited

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PAY2092120091925
McKinsey & Company

McKinsey & Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MCK1773109656

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2