Comparison Overview

Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C.

VS

Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C.

Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C.

500 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana, 47807, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C.: Legal solutions with skill and integrity. It is what we do as a firm, what our clients expect from us, and our tradition. A six-attorney law firm located in Terre Haute, Indiana since 1946, Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. serves clients throughout Indiana and Illinois. We can help you, your family, and your business across a wide range of practices. We are connected with law firms throughout Indiana and Illinois and can work with you to provide the expertise you require. Our clients range from Fortune 500 companies to your neighbor. We represent large international companies, governmental entities, non-profit organizations, banks, welfare, pension and benefit funds, as well as small and mid-size businesses. We are committed to you, your business, and the community in which we live.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C.

6213 Skyline Drive, Houston, TX 77057, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Lam Lyn Philip is a Texas based law firm founded in 1994. The firm focus is on Commercial Collections Litigation. Among the firms’ clients are private companies –including more than a third of the US Fortune 100, and governmental entities. Our representation spans across a broad range of industries, including banks and other financial institutions, Oil & Gas, Manufacturing and Technology companies. Lam Lyn Philip has a unique, flexible, entrepreneurial culture that fosters mutually beneficial relationships with our clients. Our attorneys make it their job to understand our clients’ business goals and utilize the law to achieve those goals. We have consistently earned a reputation for being a trusted partner, willing to share the risks of litigation. Our commitment to superb client service is unyielding and permeates throughout the firm. We are cognizant of the fact that we are often the face of our client in the eyes of the public and we must carry and conduct ourselves in a manner that reflects the expectations and culture of our clients. Consistent with the principles of the founders, the firm requires its attorneys to actively participate in bar associations and community based organizations. The firm donates a portion of its earnings to various Houston nonprofit organizations and has funded scholarships for numerous individuals attending local schools.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 8
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wright-shagley-&-lowery-p-c-.jpeg
Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C.
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/lam-lyn-&-philip-p.c..jpeg
Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C.
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
Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. in 2025.

Incident History — Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wright-shagley-&-lowery-p-c-.jpeg
Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lam-lyn-&-philip-p.c..jpeg
Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company.

In the current year, Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company and Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company nor Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company nor Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company nor Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. company employs more people globally than Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Wright, Shagley & Lowery, P.C. nor Lam, Lyn & Philip, P.C. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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: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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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: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