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

Comparison Overview

PwC Norway - Teknologi & MediaPwC Norway - Teknologi & Media
VS
EY-ParthenonEY-Parthenon
PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media

PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media

Oslo, 0191, NO

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile

PwCs bransjegruppe innen Media, Underholdning, Teknologi og Telekommunikasjon.

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:79
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
EY-Parthenon

EY-Parthenon

1 More London Place, London, SE1 2AF, GB

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ey.com/parthenon
785/1000Fair

Our unique combination of transformative strategy, transactions and corporate finance delivers real-world value – solutions that work in practice, not just on paper. Benefiting from EY’s full spectrum of services, we’ve reimagined strategic consulting to work in a worl...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:18,222
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media

PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media

-
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
EY-Parthenon

EY-Parthenon

-
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 PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for EY-Parthenon in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EY-Parthenon (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EY-Parthenon 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...
PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media

PwC Norway - Teknologi & Media

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
EY-Parthenon

EY-Parthenon

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9