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

Comparison Overview

PwC SlovakiaPwC Slovakia
VS
ConduentConduent
PwC Slovakia

PwC Slovakia

Karadžičova 2, Bratislava, 815 32, SK

Last Update: 14/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pwc.com/sk
754/1000Fair

At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We’re a network of firms in 149 countries with over 370,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters to y...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:551
Subsidiaries:79
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Conduent

Conduent

100 Campus Dr, Florham Park, New Jersey, US, 07932

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.conduent.com
100/1000Critical

Conduent delivers digital business solutions and services spanning the commercial, government and transportation spectrum – creating valuable outcomes for its clients and the millions of people who count on them. We leverage cloud computing, artificial intelligence, mac...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:37,668
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PwC Slovakia

PwC Slovakia

-
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
Conduent

Conduent

-
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 Slovakia in 2026.

Incidents

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

Conduent has 476.92% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PwC Slovakia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PwC Slovakia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Conduent (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Conduent 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 Slovakia

PwC Slovakia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Conduent

Conduent

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CON1776790111
🔒 Incident : Breach
CON1772670434
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
APP1770616335

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1