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

Comparison Overview

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

31 W 52nd St, New York, NY, US, 10019

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://pillsburylaw.com
699/1000Weak

Pillsbury is one of the world’s foremost law firms, operating at the intersection of technology innovation, capital and government. From microchips to blue chips, Pillsbury represents clients ranging from entrepreneurs working out of a garage to the largest public and p...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:1,981
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4HT, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dlapiper.com
782/1000Fair

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver excepti...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:13,333
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

-
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
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

-
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 Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP has 33.33% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper 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...
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIL1774902573
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-15511
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Comfast CF-WR631AX V3 up to 2.7.0.8. Affected by this vulnerability is the function system_wl_upload_pic_file of the file /usr/bin/webmgnt of the component FastCGI Backend. This manipulation of the argument filename causes os command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-12
UPDATED
Date2026-07-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-15510
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Leantime up to 3.8.0. Affected is the function Setting::saveSetting of the component API. The manipulation results in improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-12
UPDATED
Date2026-07-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-15509
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Leantime up to 3.8.0. This impacts the function editUser/addUser of the component JSON-RPC Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument role leads to improper authorization. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-12
UPDATED
Date2026-07-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-15508
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Helicone ai-gateway up to 0.2.0-beta.30. This affects the function build_target_url of the file ai-gateway/src/dispatcher/service.rs of the component AWS Metadata Service. Executing a manipulation of the argument extracted_path_and_query can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-12
UPDATED
Date2026-07-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-15507
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in coollabsio Coolify up to 4.1.1. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /app/Policies/ of the component Policy Handler. Performing a manipulation results in missing authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-12
UPDATED
Date2026-07-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8