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

Comparison Overview

TP-LINK Deutschland GmbHTP-LINK Deutschland GmbH
VS
LexisNexisLexisNexis
TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH

TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH

Am Trippelsberg 100, Düsseldorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, 40589, DE

Last Update: 20/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tp-link.de
751/1000Fair

TP-LINK is a global provider of SOHO networking products and No.1 market share holder in China, with products available in over 100 countries to tens of millions customers. Committed to powerful R&D, effective production and strict quality management, TP-LINK continues ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:93
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

230 Park Avenue, New York City, 10017, US

Last Update: 23/06/2026

View Profile

LexisNexis is a leading innovator of private, secure, and authoritative Legal AI solutions that help legal and business professionals draft full documents with ease, make informed decisions faster, and deliver outstanding work and improved outcomes, all powered by trust...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,705
Subsidiaries:72
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH

TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH

-
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
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

-
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 TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

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

LexisNexis has 183.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LexisNexis 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...
TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH

TP-LINK Deutschland GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RELLEX1772562253
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1772555037
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1782211793

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2