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

Comparison Overview

Spur ReplySpur Reply
VS
ERMERM
Spur Reply

Spur Reply

3180 139th Pl SE, Bellevue, 98007, US

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://spur-reply.com/
752/1000Fair

Defining and managing a strong go-to-market strategy is critical for your business. Unfortunately, too many companies fail to focus on their go-to-market strategy as a competitive advantage. Combining actionable insights and a proven go-to-market approach, we help align...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:217
Subsidiaries:124
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ERM

ERM

33 St Mary Axe, London, GB, EC3A 8AA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.erm.com
784/1000Fair

Sustainability is our business.  As the world’s largest specialist sustainability consultancy, ERM partners with clients to operationalize sustainability at pace and scale, deploying a unique combination of strategic transformation and technical delivery capabilities....

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:10,575
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Spur Reply

Spur Reply

-
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
ERM

ERM

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Spur Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for ERM in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Spur Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Spur Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

ERM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Spur Reply

Spur Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ERM

ERM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9