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 - JapanTata Consultancy Services - Japan
VS
HitachiHitachi
Tata Consultancy Services - Japan

Tata Consultancy Services - Japan

港区, 106-0041, JP

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tcs.com/jp-ja
755/1000Fair

タタコンサルタンシーサービシズは、世界の様々な業界を牽引する大手企業からデジタル変革およびテクノロジーパートナーに選ばれています。1968年の創業以来、最高水準のイノベーション、卓越したエンジニアリング、カスタマーサービスを提供してきました。 タタ・グループの伝統を礎とするTCSは、お客さま、投資家、従業員、そして地域社会に長期的な価値を創造することに注力しています。世界55カ国に高度スキル人材を擁し、202カ所のサービスデリバリーセンターを有するTCSは、世界各地でトップ・エンプロイヤーに認定されており、新技術を迅速に適用・拡張す...

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
Hitachi

Hitachi

1-6-6, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan, JP, 100-8280

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.hitachi.com
827/1000Good

For over 100 years, Hitachi has been committed to developing innovations that improve lives. Today, this means creating superior technology and products that balance environment, well-being, and economic growth. We integrate IT, operational technology (OT), and produc...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:37,613
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tata Consultancy Services - Japan

Tata Consultancy Services - Japan

-
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
Hitachi

Hitachi

-
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 - Japan in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Hitachi in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Tata Consultancy Services - Japan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Consultancy Services - Japan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Hitachi 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 - Japan

Tata Consultancy Services - Japan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hitachi

Hitachi

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SIEMOXMITHIT1774866497

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8