Comparison Overview

Thynne + Macartney

VS

Legal Ombudsman

Thynne + Macartney

Level 32, Riverside Centre, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Thynne + Macartney is a specialist commercial law firm founded in 1893. We believe in taking the time to understand each individual situation and the challenges that you face. We have collectively represented some of Australia’s most successful businesses for over one hundred years; it’s time you put our skills and experience to work for you. We have the individual expertise and supporting team to guide you to a solution that will give you back control. We are a proudly independent, commercially-focused, Queensland-based law firm with strong boutique practices in Agribusiness, Maritime & Transport, Property, Planning & Environment and Insurance. Whatever your challenges, we’re with you. Thynne + Macartney is a member of Ally Law, an alliance of 60+ independent law firms and 2000+ professionals who provide comprehensive legal services to major corporations worldwide.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 74
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Legal Ombudsman

undefined, Birmingham, undefined, undefined, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-28

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) resolves complaints about providers of legal services that haven’t been resolved to customers’ satisfaction – as quickly and informally as possible. LeO covers the majority of legal services provided in England and Wales. The rules and limits about what complaints LeO can help with are set out on LeO’s website. The second vital part of LeO’s work is sharing learning and insight from the complaints it sees. This promotes better complaint handling, prevents future complaints and helps drive higher standards in legal services. The Legal Services Act 2007 (the Act) established the Legal Ombudsman scheme and the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) to administer it. The Act also established the Legal Services Board (LSB) to oversee the regulation of the legal profession in England and Wales. Both the OLC and the LSB are Arm’s Length Bodies of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). LeO’s work supports and aligns with the regulatory objectives. Read our 2024-27 strategy at https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/who-we-are/corporate-publications/olc-strategy-2024-27/

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 215
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thynne-&-macartney.jpeg
Thynne + Macartney
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Thynne + Macartney
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Legal Ombudsman
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Thynne + Macartney in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Legal Ombudsman in 2025.

Incident History — Thynne + Macartney (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thynne + Macartney cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Legal Ombudsman (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Legal Ombudsman cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thynne-&-macartney.jpeg
Thynne + Macartney
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/legal-ombudsman.jpeg
Legal Ombudsman
Incidents

FAQ

Legal Ombudsman company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Thynne + Macartney company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Legal Ombudsman company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Thynne + Macartney company.

In the current year, Legal Ombudsman company and Thynne + Macartney company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Legal Ombudsman company nor Thynne + Macartney company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Legal Ombudsman company nor Thynne + Macartney company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Legal Ombudsman company nor Thynne + Macartney company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Thynne + Macartney company nor Legal Ombudsman company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Thynne + Macartney company nor Legal Ombudsman company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Legal Ombudsman company employs more people globally than Thynne + Macartney company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Thynne + Macartney nor Legal Ombudsman holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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