Comparison Overview
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services
Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai, 400001, IN
Last Update: 15/09/2026
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is the 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 customer service. It has set an aspiration to...

AlmavivA Group
Via di Casal Boccone, 188-190, Roma, IT, 00137
Last Update: 11/09/2026
Almaviva is the Italian digital innovation group that supports the country’s growth by helping enterprises meet the challenges of staying competitive in the digital age. The Group helps organizations transform their business models, operational structures, corporate cul...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Tata Consultancy Services







AlmavivA Group






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Tata Consultancy Services has 34.23% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for AlmavivA Group in 2026.
Incident History - Tata Consultancy Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Tata Consultancy Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - AlmavivA Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
AlmavivA Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Tata Consultancy Services

AlmavivA Group
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/v0.29.0/vllm/distributed/kv_transfer/kv_connector/v1/mooncake/mooncake_connector.py#L1978-L1989
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/49796
- https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/vllm-through-0.29.0-gpu-kv-cache-leak-via-mooncake-transfer-id-collision
vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/v0.29.0/vllm/distributed/kv_transfer/kv_connector/utils.py#L569-L573
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/v0.29.0/vllm/distributed/kv_transfer/kv_connector/v1/nixl/metadata.py#L277
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/51137
- https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/vllm-through-0.29.0-memory-exhaustion-via-unvalidated-nixl-tp-size
vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/v0.29.0/vllm/distributed/kv_transfer/kv_connector/v1/mooncake/mooncake_connector.py#L1234-L1242
- https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/51236
- https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/vllm-through-0.29.0-resource-exhaustion-via-ownerless-mooncake-transfer-placeholders