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

Comparison Overview

Van WagnerVan Wagner
VS
TBWA\WorldwideTBWA\Worldwide
Van Wagner

Van Wagner

None, None, New York, New York, US, 10022

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.vanwagner.com
710/1000Moderate

Van Wagner has been connecting brands to sports for over twenty years. Our parent company, Van Wagner Group, was the largest privately held out-of-home advertising company in the country, responsible for transforming Time Square and creating some of the most memorable a...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:455
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
TBWA\Worldwide

TBWA\Worldwide

220 E 42nd St, New York, 10017, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tbwa.com
777/1000Fair

TBWA is The Disruption Company®. We are a Collective of creative minds with an unlimited creative canvas. We create brand platforms that defy convention and compete with culture. Thanks to our trademarked Disruption® methodology, we build the world’s strongest brands. B...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:11,394
Subsidiaries:72
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Van Wagner

Van Wagner

-
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
TBWA\Worldwide

TBWA\Worldwide

-
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 Van Wagner in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TBWA\Worldwide in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Van Wagner (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Van Wagner cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TBWA\Worldwide (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TBWA\Worldwide 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...
Van Wagner

Van Wagner

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
VAN708072525
TBWA\Worldwide

TBWA\Worldwide

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9