Comparison Overview

RPWB Law Firm

VS

Eckermanns

RPWB Law Firm

1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Mt. Pleasant, SC, 29464, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Rogers, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman is a law firm with extensive experience representing plaintiffs in complex litigation across a diverse array of practice areas. We are frequently selected to hold leadership positions in class actions and MDLs. Our attorneys are licensed to practice in 13 states and territories. (CA, DC, FL, GA, IL, KS, MD, MI, MO, SC, TX, US-VI and WI.) With a network of co-counsel partners across the country, we have the knowledge, skill and resources to investigate and litigate throughout the United States. While we take pride in our work to help large groups of people, our foundation remains to help individual clients by litigating catastrophic personal injury cases, truck accidents, railroad accidents, construction defects, medical malpractice, occupational lung disease and mesothelioma claims. RPWB was formed in 2002 by a group of attorneys who had built the reputation of being skilled, principled and tenacious. Their experience included working on the most significant litigation against what was then our nation’s biggest health crisis: tobacco use. The cases led to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which has compensated states for healthcare costs and funded nationwide anti-smoking campaigns. Others had made a name for themselves by litigating asbestos, catastrophic personal injury, products liability and pharmaceutical cases. The result is a law firm that is skilled and experienced enough to take on big, complicated cases in South Carolina and beyond. *Please note that South Carolina lawyers are prohibited from designating themselves as "specialists"​ or "specializing"​ in areas of the law except under very specific circumstances. LinkedIn uses the term "specialties"​ broadly to encompass any special skills, interests, or areas of focus an organization may have. We are not a specialist as defined by the South Carolina Code of Laws or the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to lawyers.*

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 53
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Eckermanns

180 Flinders St, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Eckermanns, established in 1976 as Eckermann Steinert Conveyancers, has earned the reputation as a leader in professional legal and conveyancing services in South Australia by providing quality, personalised service. Eckermanns can assist with a vast range of transactions. Please visit our website to view a description of the legal and conveyancing services we can provide to you. While we are one of the largest property transaction firms in South Australia, we ensure our service remains personal. With nine offices covering all corners of South Australia, we have the expertise and resources to assist in all aspects of property transactions and related legal services. Please contact us at any one of our offices for further, personalised information on any of our services.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 44
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/richardson-patrick-westbrook-&-brickman-llc.jpeg
RPWB Law Firm
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/eckermann-steinert-conveyancers.jpeg
Eckermanns
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
RPWB Law Firm
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Eckermanns
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RPWB Law Firm in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eckermanns in 2025.

Incident History — RPWB Law Firm (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RPWB Law Firm cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Eckermanns cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/richardson-patrick-westbrook-&-brickman-llc.jpeg
RPWB Law Firm
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eckermann-steinert-conveyancers.jpeg
Eckermanns
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

RPWB Law Firm company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Eckermanns company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Eckermanns company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to RPWB Law Firm company.

In the current year, Eckermanns company and RPWB Law Firm company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Eckermanns company nor RPWB Law Firm company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Eckermanns company nor RPWB Law Firm company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Eckermanns company nor RPWB Law Firm company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither RPWB Law Firm company nor Eckermanns company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither RPWB Law Firm company nor Eckermanns company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

RPWB Law Firm company employs more people globally than Eckermanns company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RPWB Law Firm nor Eckermanns 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