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

Comparison Overview

WoodWood
VS
PwCPwC
Wood

Wood

Sir Ian Wood House, Aberdeen, undefined, AB12 3LE, GB

Last Update: 17/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.woodplc.com
753/1000Fair

Wood is a global leader in consulting and engineering, delivering critical solutions across energy and materials markets. We provide consulting, projects and operations solutions in 60 countries, employing around 35,000 people.

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:35,191
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PwC

PwC

1 Embankment Place, GB

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en
821/1000Good

At PwC, we help clients drive their companies to the leading edge. We’re a tech-forward, people-empowered network with more than 370,000 people in 149 countries. Across audit and assurance, tax and legal, deals and consulting we help build, accelerate and sustain moment...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:294,614
Subsidiaries:55
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Wood

Wood

-
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
PwC

PwC

-
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 Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wood in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PwC in 2026.

Incidents

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

Wood 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 - PwC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PwC 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...
Wood

Wood

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PwC

PwC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
OFCK&LAONPROKIRSHEPWCMOV1781843490

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94094
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in OpenClaw up to 2026.9.5. Affected is the function createCanvasHostHandler of the file extensions/canvas/src/host/server.ts of the component Canvas Host Route. Executing a manipulation can lead to denial of service. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. Fix suggestion's "streaming/size-limit" was never shipped - latest 2026.9.5 still buffers the whole file via readFile() (src/canvas/serve.runtime.ts:17,114), unlike the sibling WS path which caps at 64KB. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-94093
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in DLR-RM stable-baselines3 up to 2.9.0. This affects the function PPO.load/load_replay_buffer/VecNormalize.load of the file save_util.py. Such manipulation leads to deserialization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. In v2.9.0 the PyTorch tensor load path is hardened (weights_only=True), but that hardening was later reverted on master via PR #1913 "Hotfix: revert loading with weights_only=True" [blocked] to fix PyTorch 1.13 compat - so even the one "safe" path is inconsistent across versions. #2281 was closed as a duplicate of #1831 since both are unsafe pickle deserialization - but #1831's fix (PR #41) only gated the Hugging Face Hub loader in the separate huggingface_sb3 package. This finding covers the core stable_baselines3 load APIs (PPO.load, load_replay_buffer, VecNormalize.load), which have no safe mode or gate and remained exploitable in v2.9.0 until the outstanding hardening (PR #2264) ships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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:N/UI:P/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-2026-94092
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in dmlc dgl up to 2.1.0. This impacts the function load_info/_read_torch_data of the file utils.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument path results in deserialization. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1
CVE-2026-94091
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in piskvorky gensim up to 4.4.0. The impacted element is the function Load of the file gensim/utils.py of the component Model Loader. This manipulation of the argument fname causes deserialization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Maintainer closed #3663 same-day with no comment, PR, or fix; repo's last push (2025-11-01) predates the report, so the unsafe pickle.load in SaveLoad.load remains unguarded at develop HEAD.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1
CVE-2026-94090
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in JusticeRage Manalyze 1.0.0. The affected element is the function PE::_parse_debug of the file manape/pe.cpp of the component PE Parser. The manipulation of the argument misc.Length results in integer underflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The patch is identified as 3e299685759f4f767088871de58c5d07f98ee382. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8