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

Comparison Overview

W-GroupW-Group
VS
LHHLHH
W-Group

W-Group

N/A

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.w-group.it/
749/1000Moderate

W-Group siamo noi. Questo è il motivo per cui esistiamo: rendere il mondo un posto migliore aiutando persone e aziende nella realizzazione dei propri sogni. Questo è il modo in cui lo facciamo: con persone fantastiche: le nostre, e quelle delle aziende clienti. Sono l...

NAICS:541612
NAICS Definition:Human Resources Consulting Services
Employees:34
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LHH

LHH

10151 Deerwood Park Boulevard, Building 200, Suite 400, Jacksonville, Florida, US, 32256

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.lhh.com
816/1000Good

At LHH, we believe work should be meaningful, fulfilling, and connected. Our vision? To create a beautiful working world—a world where people and businesses are empowered to achieve bold ambitions. That's why we've designed solutions to address each stage of the tal...

NAICS:541612
NAICS Definition:Human Resources Consulting Services
Employees:23,037
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
W-Group

W-Group

-
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
LHH

LHH

-
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 Human Resources Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for W-Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Human Resources Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LHH in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - W-Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

W-Group 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 - LHH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LHH 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...
W-Group

W-Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LHH

LHH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8