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

Comparison Overview

We Are METAWe Are META
VS
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
We Are META

We Are META

Avenida Almirante Reis, Lisbon, 1150-019, PT

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.wearemeta.io
750/1000Fair

We Are META was born to prove that Tech Talent Consultancy can be great for IT careers. We empower IT businesses by creating a CRASH: a group of highly skilled and motivated tech professionals that extends your team and charges at every obstacle, fearlessly! Our soci...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:79
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

200 Pier 4 Blvd, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 02210

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bcg.com
789/1000Fair

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:40,418
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
We Are META

We Are META

-
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
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for We Are META in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - We Are META (X = Date, Y = Severity)

We Are META 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 - Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) 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...
We Are META

We Are META

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAIBOS1776126313

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA