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

Comparison Overview

South Western CommunicationsSouth Western Communications
VS
KyndrylKyndryl
South Western Communications

South Western Communications

4871 Rosebud Lane, Newburgh, 47630, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.swc.net
633/1000Poor

South Western Communications, SWC, has been an innovative leader in the electronics and communication technology industry since 1976. SWC offers progressive systems technology by integrating flexible communications solutions for Healthcare, Educational, Commercial/Indus...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:231
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Kyndryl

Kyndryl

New York City, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://kyndryl.com
763/1000Fair

We have the world’s best talent that design, run, and manage the most advanced and reliable technology infrastructure each day. Together, we think holistically about the health of these vital technology ecosystems. We are a focused, independent company that builds on o...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:60,770
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
South Western Communications

South Western Communications

-
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
Kyndryl

Kyndryl

-
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 South Western Communications in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Kyndryl in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - South Western Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

South Western Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Kyndryl (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kyndryl cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
South Western Communications

South Western Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SOU0193001103125
Kyndryl

Kyndryl

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2