Comparison Overview

Serco

VS

Zebra Technologies

Serco

16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook, Hook, Hampshire, GB, RG27 9UY
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

We bring together the right people, the right technology and the right partners to create innovative solutions that make positive impact and address some of the most urgent and complex challenges facing the modern world. With a focus on serving governments globally, Serco’s services span justice, migration, defence, space, customer services, health, and transport. Our core capabilities include service design and advisory, resourcing, complex programme management, systems integration, case management, engineering, and asset & facilities management.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 31,499
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Zebra Technologies

3 Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, IL, 60069, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Zebra (NASDAQ: ZBRA) helps organizations monitor, anticipate, and accelerate workflows by empowering their frontline and ensuring that everyone and everything is visible, connected and fully optimized. Our award-winning portfolio spans software to innovations in robotics, machine vision, automation and digital decisioning, all backed by a +50-year legacy in scanning, track-and-trace and mobile computing solutions. With an ecosystem of 10,000 partners across more than 100 countries, Zebra’s customers include over 80% of the Fortune 500. Newsweek recently recognized Zebra as one of America’s Most Loved Workplaces and Greatest Workplaces for Diversity, and we are on Fast Company’s list of the Best Workplaces for Innovators.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 11,126
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/serco.jpeg
Serco
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/zebra-technologies.jpeg
Zebra Technologies
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
Serco
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Zebra Technologies
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Serco in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Zebra Technologies in 2025.

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

Serco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Zebra Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zebra Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/serco.jpeg
Serco
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2021
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Accidental Sharing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/zebra-technologies.jpeg
Zebra Technologies
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Zebra Technologies company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Serco company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Serco company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Zebra Technologies company has not reported any.

In the current year, Zebra Technologies company and Serco company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Serco company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Zebra Technologies company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Zebra Technologies company nor Serco company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Zebra Technologies company nor Serco company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Serco company nor Zebra Technologies company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Zebra Technologies company and Serco company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Serco company employs more people globally than Zebra Technologies company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Serco nor Zebra Technologies holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H