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

Comparison Overview

UL SolutionsUL Solutions
VS
Grant Thornton (US)Grant Thornton (US)
UL Solutions

UL Solutions

333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois, US, 60062-2096

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.ul.com/solutions
731/1000Moderate

A global leader in applied safety science, UL Solutions (NYSE: ULS) transforms safety, security and sustainability challenges into opportunities for customers in more than 110 countries. UL Solutions delivers testing, inspection and certification services, together with...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:14,137
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

171 N. Clark Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL, US, 60601

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gt-us.co/3LukwpC
765/1000Fair

In the US, Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. G...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:11,632
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UL Solutions

UL Solutions

-
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
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

-
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 Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UL Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grant Thornton (US) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - UL Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UL Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Grant Thornton (US) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grant Thornton (US) 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...
UL Solutions

UL Solutions

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ULS224071222
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UL19452322
🔒 Incident : Breach
ULS007091825
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRA519072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44541
SUMMARY

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. From version 2.33.0 to before version 2.84.5, there is a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via the fides_description override. This issue has been patched in version 2.84.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49141
SUMMARY

WACRM prior to commit 73041bf contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the automation engine that allows authenticated attackers to access and modify contacts belonging to other tenants by supplying an arbitrary caller-controlled contact_id in the POST request body without tenant ownership verification. Attackers can exploit the service-role client that bypasses row-level security to modify victim contact fields including name, email, and company across tenant boundaries using only a known contact UUID.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47345
SUMMARY

Namespace attributes are not encoded correctly during HTML serialization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47344
SUMMARY

When ALLOW_INSECURE_RAW_TEXT is enabled, whitespace-variant closing tags (e.g., </style\t>) are not recognized by the sanitizer but accepted by browsers as valid end tags, allowing subsequent content to escape sanitization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-46484
SUMMARY

Headplane is a feature-complete Web UI for Headscale. Prior to versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3, Headplane was vulnerable to a path traversal / authorization bypass in the Headscale API client used by node and user rename operations. This issue has been patched in versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8