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

Comparison Overview

Tata Consultancy Services – Asia PacificTata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific
VS
Ingram MicroIngram Micro
Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific

Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific

80 Anson Road, Mapletree Anson, Singapore, 079914, SG

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tcs.com/
760/1000Fair

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) (BSE: 532540, NSE: TCS) is a digital transformation and technology partner of choice for industry-leading organizations worldwide. Since its inception in 1968, TCS has upheld the highest standards of innovation, engineering excellence and...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:73
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

3351 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA, US, 92612

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
100/1000Critical

Ingram Micro is a leading technology company for the global information technology ecosystem. With the ability to reach nearly 90% of the global population, we play a vital role in the worldwide IT sales channel, bringing products and services from technology manufactur...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:28,560
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific

Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific

-
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
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

-
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 Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific in 2026.

Incidents

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

Ingram Micro has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ingram Micro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ingram Micro 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...
Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific

Tata Consultancy Services – Asia Pacific

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ING1769038099
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ING1770920806
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ING1802018100325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1