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

Comparison Overview

Sitel GroupSitel Group
VS
TTECTTEC
Sitel Group

Sitel Group

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3200, Miami, 33131, US

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
793/1000Fair

Foundever™ is a global leader in the customer experience (CX) industry. With 170,000 associates across the globe, we’re the team behind the best experiences for +750 of the world’s leading and digital-first brands. Our innovative CX solutions, technology and expertise a...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:39,674
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TTEC

TTEC

100 Congress Ave, Suite 1425, Austin, Texas, US, 78701

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ttec.com/
681/1000Weak

We’re TTEC (pronounced t.tec). For over 40 years we have been obsessed with one thing: Helping the world’s best brands deliver exceptional customer experiences (CX). We're not just another BPO company. We're CX innovators, with deep understanding of what makes customers...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:41,059
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sitel Group

Sitel Group

-
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
TTEC

TTEC

-
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 Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sitel Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TTEC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sitel Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sitel Group 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 - TTEC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TTEC 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...
Sitel Group

Sitel Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TTEC

TTEC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TTE2240171122
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TTE16021322
🔒 Incident : Breach
TTE451080425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-55867
SUMMARY

Graylog is a free and open log management platform. From 6.2.0 until 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2, the DELETE /users/{userId}/tokens/{idOrToken} endpoint implemented by UsersResource.revokeToken() in graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/users/UsersResource.java checks USERS_TOKENREMOVE permission against the attacker-controlled userId path parameter before resolving the token selected by idOrToken. An authenticated user can provide an authorized userId while accessTokenService.loadById() or accessTokenService.load() resolves a token belonging to another user, including a service account or administrator, after which accessTokenService.destroy() deletes that token without checking AccessToken.getUserName(). The issue does not expose token contents, but unauthorized deletion causes integrity impact and can disrupt access-token-based integrations. This issue is fixed in versions 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55860
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb does not gate clear-text password authentication plugins on transport encryption because the AuthenticationPlugin interface has no capability for a plugin to require a secure connection. A hostile or man-in-the-middle MariaDB server can send an AuthSwitchRequest naming mysql_clear_password or dialog (PAM) over a plain-TCP unencrypted connection, and AuthenticationFlow permits ClearPasswordPluginFlow or PamPluginFlow to return the user's password as cleartext bytes on the wire. The disclosed credentials can subsequently be used to authenticate directly to the database server. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55859
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb encodes and decodes all character data under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. A server can announce a mid-session change to character_set_client through the OK-packet session-state-tracking mechanism, including through SET NAMES executed by a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile or man-in-the-middle server. If the new character set is not UTF-8, the driver continues to exchange UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under a different encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value raises R2dbcNonTransientResourceException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55858
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, the connector encodes and decodes protocol text and performs client-side escaping under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. The server can report a mid-session change to character_set_client through OK-packet session-state tracking, including a change caused by SET NAMES, a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile server. If character_set_client changes to a non-UTF-8 value, the driver continues to read and write UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under another encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value causes SQLException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55857
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, PAM dialog authentication can be coerced into transmitting the account password over an insecure connection. The mysql_clear_password plugin is gated behind a secure transport, but the sibling PAM handler SendPamAuthPacketFactory, named dialog by the server, does not declare that requirement and inherits the default secure-required value false; older branches implement the same affected behavior in SendPamAuthPacket. A hostile or man-in-the-middle server can send an Authentication Switch Request for dialog over plain TCP, causing the driver to return the user's password in cleartext when sslMode=DISABLE and restrictedAuth=null, which is the default configuration. Properly verified TLS and local Unix sockets are not exposed to this transport vector. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2