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
Ingram MicroIngram Micro
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
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

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

Last Update: 14/09/2026

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:29,848
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 - 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
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 - Japan in 2026.

Incidents

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

Ingram Micro has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - 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 - Japan

Tata Consultancy Services - Japan

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-103761
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a memory exhaustion vulnerability in TransferMetadata::receivePeerNotify that allows unauthenticated attackers to grow process memory without limit. Attackers can repeatedly send notify frames up to 1 MB to the handshake RPC port, filling the uncapped notifys vector until the out-of-memory killer terminates the engine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-103760
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to block the handshake daemon by never reading replies. Attackers can send a Metadata request to the handshake RPC port and stall SocketHandShakePlugin's single listener thread in writeFully(), breaking all subsequent handshakes, metadata fetches, notify and probe requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2025-71427
SUMMARY

Office-PowerPoint-MCP-Server through 2.0.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows MCP callers to write and read files outside the working directory by supplying absolute paths or ../ sequences. Attackers can steer an AI agent via prompt injection to abuse save_presentation, open_presentation, or manage_image output_path to overwrite any server-writable file or load external files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86344
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a complete LDAP operation followed by the first bytes of an incomplete LDAPMessage on the same connection, causing the server to hand that connection to a second worker thread before the first worker's result is flushed. The second worker blocks until nsslapd-ioblocktimeout while holding the connection mutex, preventing delivery of the completed operation's result. Repeating this across a small number of connections proportional to the configured worker-thread pool size exhausts the entire pool under default configuration, denying service to all clients (anonymous and authenticated, plaintext and TLS) for as long as the attacker maintains the connections.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71454
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') vulnerability in CWE-79 - Cross-site Scripting CAPEC-63 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects CAPEC-63: before 3.0b63.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA