Comparison Overview
TCS Digital Software & Solutions

TCS Digital Software & Solutions
Raveline Street, Fort, Mumbai, 400001, IN
Last Update: 31/03/2026
TCS Digital Software & Solutions is a Strategic Growth Business within TCS, helping large businesses navigate critical digital transformations with modular, scalable, and fully integrated industry-tailored licensed software and solutions. TCS Digital Software & Soluti...

Ingram Micro
3351 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, 92612, US
Last Update: 14/09/2026
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...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

TCS Digital Software & Solutions







Ingram Micro






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for TCS Digital Software & Solutions in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Ingram Micro has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - TCS Digital Software & Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)
TCS Digital Software & Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Ingram Micro (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Ingram Micro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

TCS Digital Software & Solutions

Ingram Micro
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