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

Comparison Overview

Yellow Hat LimitedYellow Hat Limited
VS
Capgemini InventCapgemini Invent
Yellow Hat Limited

Yellow Hat Limited

Caterpillar Corner, Little Chesterford, CM10 1UD, GB

Last Update: 01/05/2026

View Profile
650/1000Weak

Yellow Hat drives people and organisational performance through effective communication and employee reward programmes. We work with large and small private sector businesses, high profile government departments, publicly funded organisations and not-for-profit companie...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Capgemini Invent

Capgemini Invent

Place de l'Etoile, 11 rue de Tilsitt, Paris, FR, 75017

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
790/1000Fair

Capgemini Invent is the digital innovation, consulting and transformation brand of the Capgemini Group, a global business line that combines market leading expertise in strategy, technology, data science and creative design, to help CxOs envision and build what’s next f...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:16,695
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Yellow Hat Limited

Yellow Hat Limited

-
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
Capgemini Invent

Capgemini Invent

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Yellow Hat Limited has 28.57% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Capgemini Invent in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Yellow Hat Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yellow Hat Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Capgemini Invent (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Capgemini Invent cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Yellow Hat Limited

Yellow Hat Limited

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
YEL1777624108
Capgemini Invent

Capgemini Invent

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82424
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PHPGurukul Student Information System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /student_edit1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-82423
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /order/paySuccess of the component Payment Status Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument orderId leads to enforcement of behavioral workflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The vendor deleted the GitHub issue for this vulnerability without any explanation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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:N/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82422
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /pages/emp_del.php. The manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-82421
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /pages/emp_edit.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-15369
SUMMARY

The Custom User Registration Fields for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to, and including, 2.2.3. This is due to the plugin accepting an attacker-controlled afreg_select_user_role value from the unauthenticated WooCommerce Store API /wc/store/v1/checkout request in the af_reg_checkout_data_to_order_meta_data_block() function, persisting it in order meta, and then passing it directly to WP_User::add_role() in the af_reg_custom_order_processing_function() function (hooked to woocommerce_thankyou) without validating against the plugin's admin-configured allowed role list. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to elevate their privileges to Administrator by creating an account during checkout with a modified JSON body specifying administrator (or any other role slug) as the desired role. Note: The exploit requires the "User Role Selection" setting to be enabled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9