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

Comparison Overview

Wavemaker Australia & New ZealandWavemaker Australia & New Zealand
VS
dentsudentsu
Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand

Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand

1 Shelley Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, AU

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

At Wavemaker we believe there is always a better way to grow. We know that growth models of the past will not serve the future. Established approaches and traditional thinking are being exploded in every sector, in every market. But exceptional growth requires uncomfort...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:252
Subsidiaries:130
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
dentsu

dentsu

1-8-1 Higashi-shimbashi, Tokyo, JP

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://bit.ly/3lDa6Ff
684/1000Weak

We are dentsu. We team together to help brands predict and plan for disruptive future opportunities and create new paths to growth in the sustainable economy. We know people better than anyone else and we use those insights to connect brand, content, commerce and experi...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:19,113
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand

Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand

-
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
dentsu

dentsu

-
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 Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for dentsu in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand 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 - dentsu (X = Date, Y = Severity)

dentsu 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...
Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand

Wavemaker Australia & New Zealand

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
dentsu

dentsu

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEN1492114110225
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEN0962609112125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1