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

Comparison Overview

TRANZACTTRANZACT
VS
QuadQuad
TRANZACT

TRANZACT

2200 Fletcher Avenue, Fort Lee, 07024, US

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tranzact.net
757/1000Fair

TRANZACT is the market leader in delivering high-volume sales for the top insurance brands in America. We reach millions of consumers a week. We help the leading consumer insurance brands grow quality direct-to-consumer business. TRANZACT has multiple subsidiaries, in...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:1,597
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Quad

Quad

Sussex, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

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

Quad (NYSE: QUAD) is a global marketing experience company that helps brands make direct consumer connections, from household to in-store to online. Supported by state-of-the-art technology and data-driven intelligence, Quad uses its suite of media, creative and product...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:10,259
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TRANZACT

TRANZACT

-
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
Quad

Quad

-
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 Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TRANZACT in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Quad in 2026.

Incidents

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

TRANZACT 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 - Quad (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Quad 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...
TRANZACT

TRANZACT

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Quad

Quad

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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