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

Comparison Overview

WorleyWorley
VS
PwCPwC
Worley

Worley

420 George St, Sydney, 2000, AU

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.worley.com
769/1000Fair

Worley is a global professional services company of energy, chemicals and resources experts headquartered in Australia. We’re bridging two worlds, accelerating the shift to more sustainable energy sources, while helping our customers provide the energy, chemicals and ...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:37,624
Subsidiaries:0
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
Worley

Worley

-
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 Worley in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PwC in 2026.

Incidents

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

Worley 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...
Worley

Worley

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PwC

PwC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
OFCK&LAONPROKIRSHEPWCMOV1781843490

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9