Comparison Overview

RGSLAW

VS

Lewis, Longman & Walker

RGSLAW

Level 4, 6 Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

RGSLAW focuses on not just legal advice, but on creative problem solving. As a result, our clients are provided with outstanding tailored results. As a highly regarded specialist, commercial advice and litigation firm with over 30 years industry experience, RGSLAW provides legal services Australia-wide. Our innovating thinking, high-quality work and efficiency, means RGSLAW has a long list of loyal and happy clients, who not only love our work but love working with us.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Lewis, Longman & Walker

360 South Rosemary Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

For over 30 years, the attorneys at LLW have helped the individuals, businesses and governments that have shaped Florida's future. We offer solutions to issues associated with complex local, state, and federal laws and regulations. We focus on the specific, technical and seemingly ever-changing areas of Environmental, Land Use, Legislative and Governmental Law. The LLW team is comprised of well-known and respected attorneys with the experience and skill to quickly resolve difficult legal challenges. We are committed to responding to clients' needs promptly and economically and believe in building long-term attorney-client relationships based upon collaboration and solid performance. At LLW, we don't believe that winning solutions for our clients means that someone else has to lose. We see things differently.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 78
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rgslaw.jpeg
RGSLAW
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lewis-longman-&-walker.jpeg
Lewis, Longman & Walker
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
RGSLAW
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lewis, Longman & Walker
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RGSLAW in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lewis, Longman & Walker in 2025.

Incident History — RGSLAW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RGSLAW cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lewis, Longman & Walker (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lewis, Longman & Walker cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rgslaw.jpeg
RGSLAW
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lewis-longman-&-walker.jpeg
Lewis, Longman & Walker
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

RGSLAW company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lewis, Longman & Walker company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Lewis, Longman & Walker company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to RGSLAW company.

In the current year, Lewis, Longman & Walker company and RGSLAW company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lewis, Longman & Walker company nor RGSLAW company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Lewis, Longman & Walker company nor RGSLAW company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Lewis, Longman & Walker company nor RGSLAW company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither RGSLAW company nor Lewis, Longman & Walker company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lewis, Longman & Walker company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to RGSLAW company.

Lewis, Longman & Walker company employs more people globally than RGSLAW company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RGSLAW nor Lewis, Longman & Walker holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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