Comparison Overview

Pulse Healthcare

VS

Adecco

Pulse Healthcare

9 Appold Street, London, England, GB, EC2A 2AP
Last Update: 2026-01-15
Between 0 and 549

Pulse is a leading UK and international provider of healthcare staffing; we’re unique in our commitment to delivering the highest quality service through placing the best people. We support NHS Trusts and private health sector providers by placing expert and compliant nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health and health science staff into the right permanent and temporary roles. Through attracting and nurturing the best people, we help our clients deliver the best compassionate care. We’re an approved supplier to the NHS and we hold contracts with NHS trusts, private hospitals, social service departments and local authorities nationwide. We work with hospitals to provide medical and healthcare jobs in Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East. If you are interested in working for Pulse, please email your CV to [email protected] or call us on 020 7959 1146.

NAICS: 5613
NAICS Definition: Employment Services
Employees: 536
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Adecco

Bellerivestrasse 30, Zurich, 8008, CH
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Perfect placements. Speedy staffing. Tenacious testing. Who’s Adecco, we hear you ask? Only the top provider of first-class HR solutions. Our consultants work with some of the best, and most exciting, companies all over the world. We equip our clients with priceless industry insight and put everything we’ve got into training and mentoring our candidates. We’re here to match talented people with the job opportunities and employers they’re looking for. On any given day we connect over 700,000 people with fulfilling opportunities that make the most of their skills now and enable them to develop new expertise for the future.

NAICS: 5613
NAICS Definition: Employment Services
Employees: 198,485
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wearepulsehealthcare.jpeg
Pulse Healthcare
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adecco.jpeg
Adecco
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Pulse Healthcare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Adecco
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pulse Healthcare in 2026.

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Adecco in 2026.

Incident History — Pulse Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pulse Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Adecco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Adecco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wearepulsehealthcare.jpeg
Pulse Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adecco.jpeg
Adecco
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Adecco company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Pulse Healthcare company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Pulse Healthcare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Adecco company has not reported any.

In the current year, Adecco company and Pulse Healthcare company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Pulse Healthcare company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Adecco company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Adecco company nor Pulse Healthcare company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Adecco company nor Pulse Healthcare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Pulse Healthcare company nor Adecco company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Adecco company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Pulse Healthcare company.

Adecco company employs more people globally than Pulse Healthcare company, reflecting its scale as a Staffing and Recruiting.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pulse Healthcare nor Adecco holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N