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

Comparison Overview

Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)
VS
BDO USABDO USA
Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)

Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)

3562 Round Barn Circle, Santa Rosa, 95403, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
723/1000Moderate

Sorren is a new Top 50 firm built on collaboration, bold thinking, and a commitment to putting people first. The financial landscape is evolving rapidly, and clients require more than just answers. They need advisors who anticipate opportunities and prepare them for wh...

NAICS:5412
NAICS Definition:Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees:56
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
BDO USA

BDO USA

330 N Wabash Ave, Chicago, IL, US, 60611

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bdo.com
775/1000Fair

At BDO, our success is measured by what we achieve together. As a leading provider of audit, tax, and advisory services, we put people first cultivating a conscious, caring corporate culture that empowers our professionals and clients to thrive. Our commitment to excell...

NAICS:5412
NAICS Definition:Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees:11,077
Subsidiaries:57
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)

Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)

-
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
BDO USA

BDO USA

-
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 Accounting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Accounting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BDO USA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - BDO USA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BDO USA 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...
Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)

Sorren (Formerly Pisenti & Brinker)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIS204072525
BDO USA

BDO USA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA