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

Comparison Overview

Williams LeaWilliams Lea
VS
TaskUsTaskUs
Williams Lea

Williams Lea

535 8th Avenue, New York, 10018, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.williamslea.com
766/1000Fair

Williams Lea is the global provider of tech-enabled skilled business-critical support services to financial, legal and professional services firms, connecting people, processes and technology to streamline key business and administrative functions and helping companies ...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:5,932
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TaskUs

TaskUs

1650 Independence Dr, New Braunfels, Texas, US, 78132

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://www.taskus.com/
560/1000Very Poor

TaskUs is a different breed of BPO. We are a collective of highly capable humans, who understand how to deploy technology and data to best serve your purpose. From Digital CX to Trust & Safety, AI Services, Risk + Response, Consulting, and anything in between, we consid...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:38,715
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Williams Lea

Williams Lea

-
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
TaskUs

TaskUs

-
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 Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Williams Lea in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

TaskUs has 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Williams Lea (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Williams Lea cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TaskUs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TaskUs 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...
Williams Lea

Williams Lea

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TaskUs

TaskUs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MARCOIDISTAS1770173590
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAS4962149091725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12191
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Comma AI Openpilot 0.11. This issue affects the function pickle.load/pickle.loads of the file selfdrive/modeld/modeld.py of the component Pickle Module. The manipulation results in deserialization. The attack is only possible with local access. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12190
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Genspark AI Workspace App 2.8.4 on Android. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component ai.mainfunc.genspark. The manipulation leads to improper authorization in handler for custom url scheme. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12189
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Moovit Bus & Public Transit App 1.18 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.tranzmate. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper authorization in handler for custom url scheme. The attack can only be executed locally. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12188
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Grit42 Grit up to 0.11.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file modules/core/backend/app/controllers/concerns/grit/core/grit_entity_controller.rb of the component GritEntityController. Performing a manipulation results in sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12187
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in GL.iNet GL-MT3000 up to 4.4.5. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /usr/bin/one_click_upgrade of the component Online Firmware Upgrade Handler. Such manipulation leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.7 addresses this issue. Upgrading the affected component is advised. The vendor was contacted early, responded in a very professional manner and quickly released a fixed version of the affected product.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8