Comparison Overview

Tigbur Group

VS

ibex

Tigbur Group

14 Aba Hilel st Ramat Gan, 52506, IL
Last Update: 2025-12-04
Between 750 and 799

Tigbur Group is International and dynamic business oriented workforce solutions and Facility management, ranking amongst the three leading industry group in Israel. The company was established in 1981 and currently employs approximately 500 employees ,more than 20,000 employed through the group and spreading over 40 branches in Israel and turkey. Specialties Nursing, Recruitment, senior placement, security, delivery, cleanliness & maintenance.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

ibex

1717 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia, US, 20006
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

ibex delivers innovative business process outsourcing (BPO), smart digital marketing, online acquisition technology, and end-to-end customer engagement solutions to help companies acquire, engage, and retain valuable customers. Today, ibex operates a global CX delivery center model consisting of 34 operations facilities around the world, while deploying next-generation technology to drive superior customer experiences for many of the world’s leading companies across retail, e-commerce, healthcare, fintech, utilities, and logistics. ibex leverages its diverse global team of over 30,000 employees together with industry-leading technology, including its Wave X platform, to manage nearly 200 million critical customer interactions, adding over $2.2B in lifetime customer revenue each year and driving a truly differentiated customer experience. To learn more, visit our website at ibex.co and connect with us on LinkedIn.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 22,315
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tigbur-ltd.jpeg
Tigbur Group
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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ibex-global.jpeg
ibex
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
Tigbur Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ibex
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Outsourcing/Offshoring Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tigbur Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Outsourcing/Offshoring Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ibex in 2025.

Incident History — Tigbur Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tigbur Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — ibex (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ibex cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tigbur-ltd.jpeg
Tigbur Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ibex-global.jpeg
ibex
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Malware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

ibex company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Tigbur Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

ibex company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Tigbur Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, ibex company and Tigbur Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither ibex company nor Tigbur Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

ibex company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Tigbur Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither ibex company nor Tigbur Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Tigbur Group company nor ibex company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ibex company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tigbur Group company.

ibex company employs more people globally than Tigbur Group company, reflecting its scale as a Outsourcing/Offshoring.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tigbur Group nor ibex holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to 1.10.4, some of HedgeDoc's OAuth2 endpoints for social login providers such as Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook or Dropbox lack CSRF protection, since they don't send a state parameter and verify the response using this parameter. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.4.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

Langflow versions up to and including 1.6.9 contain a chained vulnerability that enables account takeover and remote code execution. An overly permissive CORS configuration (allow_origins='*' with allow_credentials=True) combined with a refresh token cookie configured as SameSite=None allows a malicious webpage to perform cross-origin requests that include credentials and successfully call the refresh endpoint. An attacker-controlled origin can therefore obtain fresh access_token / refresh_token pairs for a victim session. Obtained tokens permit access to authenticated endpoints — including built-in code-execution functionality — allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code and achieve full system compromise.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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

A vulnerability was detected in xerrors Yuxi-Know up to 0.4.0. This vulnerability affects the function OtherEmbedding.aencode of the file /src/models/embed.py. Performing manipulation of the argument health_url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The patch is named 0ff771dc1933d5a6b78f804115e78a7d8625c3f3. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor responded with a vulnerability confirmation and a list of security measures they have established already (e.g. disabled URL parsing, disabled URL upload mode, removed URL-to-markdown conversion).

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

A security vulnerability has been detected in Rarlab RAR App up to 7.11 Build 127 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.rarlab.rar. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 7.20 build 128 is able to mitigate this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor responded very professional: "This is the real vulnerability affecting RAR for Android only. WinRAR and Unix RAR versions are not affected. We already fixed it in RAR for Android 7.20 build 128 and we publicly mentioned it in that version changelog. (...) To avoid confusion among users, it would be useful if such disclosure emphasizes that it is RAR for Android only issue and WinRAR isn't affected."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.1
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 2.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

A weakness has been identified in ZSPACE Q2C NAS up to 1.1.0210050. Affected by this issue is the function zfilev2_api.OpenSafe of the file /v2/file/safe/open of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. This manipulation of the argument safe_dir causes command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
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: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