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

Comparison Overview

SutherlandSutherland
VS
AtosAtos
Sutherland

Sutherland

1160 Pittsford-Victor Road, Pittsford (Rochester), NY, US, 14534

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
766/1000Fair

Artificial Intelligence. Automation. Cloud Engineering. Advanced Analytics. For Enterprises, these are key factors of success. For us, they’re our core expertise. We work with global iconic brands. We bring them a unique value proposition through market-leading techn...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:64,566
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Atos

Atos

80 Quai Voltaire, 95877 Bezons, FR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.atos.net
753/1000Fair

Atos Group is a global leader in digital transformation with c. 67,000 employees and annual revenue of c. €10 billion, operating in 61 countries under two brands — Atos for services and Eviden for products. European number one in cybersecurity, cloud and high performanc...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:87,005
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sutherland

Sutherland

-
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
Atos

Atos

-
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 Sutherland in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Atos in 2026.

Incidents

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

Sutherland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Atos 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...
Sutherland

Sutherland

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SUT000031025
Atos

Atos

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66591
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in David Lingren Media LIbrary Assistant allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Media LIbrary Assistant: from n/a through 3.39.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-66589
SUMMARY

Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kings Plugins B2BKing allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects B2BKing: from n/a through 5.2.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-27365
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Series allows Stored XSS. This issue affects PublishPress Series: from n/a through 2.17.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-73974
SUMMARY

linuxfabrik-lib provides Python modules for database access, caching, shell execution, and API integrations, and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins uses its shared testing helper across check plugins. Prior to linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0, lib.lftest.test() treated the first or second element of a --test CSV argument as a filesystem path and returned the file contents as simulated standard output or standard error without path confinement. The hidden but production-accessible --test argument was accepted by sudo-authorized plugins, so an attacker controlling the nagios or icinga account could use check-plugins/deb-updates/deb-updates with its default QUERY=1 to disclose every line of a root-readable file. Approximately 22 other plugins exposed filtered content or a root file existence and readability oracle through the same helper, while check-plugins/network-bonding/network-bonding and check-plugins/openstack-swift-stat/openstack-swift-stat had direct read paths that bypassed the helper. The library fix confines fixture reads to the invoking plugin's unit-test directory and refuses unsafe anchors, and the plugin fix routes the two bypasses through that helper. These issues are fixed in linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-73973
SUMMARY

Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins provides monitoring plugins for Icinga, Nagios, and related systems. Prior to version 7.0.0, check-plugins/logfile/logfile accepted a free-form --filename path and opened it as root when invoked through the shipped nagios or icinga sudoers allowlist, without confining the resolved path to /var/log. An attacker who controls the monitoring account can select a root-readable file such as /etc/shadow and use --warning-regex . while leaving SUPPRESS_OUTPUT false, causing each nonempty line to be collected in warn_matches and returned through lib.base.oao(). The vulnerable flow passes the expanded scan_path directly to open(), and neither real-path containment nor an allowlist protects the sink. The same fix also confines mysql-logfile and openvpn-client-list paths, allows only documented log roots, and resolves symlinks and parent-directory traversal before checking containment. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8