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

Comparison Overview

Retail @ NagarroRetail @ Nagarro
VS
Tata Consultancy ServicesTata Consultancy Services
Retail @ Nagarro

Retail @ Nagarro

N/A

Last Update: 23/04/2026

View Profile

Nagarro helps future-proof your business through a forward-thinking, fluidic, and CARING mindset. We excel at digital engineering and help our clients become human-centric, digital-first organizations, augmenting their ability to be responsive, efficient, intimate, crea...

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.tcs.com/
713/1000Moderate

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is the technology partner of choice for industry leading organizations worldwide. Since its inception in 1968, TCS has upheld the highest standards of innovation, engineering excellence, and customer service. It has set an aspiration to...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:717,299
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Retail @ Nagarro

Retail @ Nagarro

-
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
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Retail @ Nagarro in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tata Consultancy Services has 96.08% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Retail @ Nagarro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Retail @ Nagarro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Tata Consultancy Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Consultancy Services 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...
Retail @ Nagarro

Retail @ Nagarro

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAT1786447303
🔒 Incident : Breach
HCLTAT1786448292
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAT1786447105

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated 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
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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