Comparison Overview

LexisNexis

VS

Kyndryl

LexisNexis

230 Park Avenue, New York City, 10017, US
Last Update: 2026-03-28

LexisNexis is a leading innovator of private, secure, and authoritative Legal AI solutions that help legal and business professionals draft full documents with ease, make informed decisions faster, and deliver outstanding work and improved outcomes, all powered by trusted content. LexisNexis Legal & Professional serves customers in more than 150 countries with 11,800 employees worldwide, and is part of RELX, a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 10,705
Subsidiaries: 72
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Kyndryl

New York City, US
Last Update: 2026-03-25
Between 750 and 799

We have the world’s best talent that design, run, and manage the most advanced and reliable technology infrastructure each day. Together, we think holistically about the health of these vital technology ecosystems. We are a focused, independent company that builds on our foundation of excellence by creating systems in new ways. Bringing in the right partners, investing in our business, and working side-by-side with our customers to unlock potential. We're raising the bar. Our experience speaks for itself: We have tens of thousands of highly skilled employees around the world serving most of the Fortune 100 companies. But our purpose is what drives us: Advancing the vital systems that power human progress. Because when a digital ecosystem is healthy, it can more readily adapt and support continuous growth and that opens up a world of possibility for everyone. Together, we are the heart of progress.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 60,770
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lexisnexis.jpeg
LexisNexis
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/kyndryl.jpeg
Kyndryl
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
LexisNexis
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Kyndryl
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

LexisNexis has 21.21% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kyndryl in 2026.

Incident History — LexisNexis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LexisNexis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Kyndryl (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kyndryl cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lexisnexis.jpeg
LexisNexis
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of unpatched vulnerability (React2Shell)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of unpatched React2Shell vulnerability in frontend application
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unpatched Vulnerability (React2Shell)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kyndryl.jpeg
Kyndryl
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Kyndryl company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LexisNexis company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

LexisNexis company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Kyndryl company has not reported any.

In the current year, LexisNexis company has reported more cyber incidents than Kyndryl company.

Neither Kyndryl company nor LexisNexis company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

LexisNexis company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Kyndryl company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Kyndryl company nor LexisNexis company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LexisNexis company nor Kyndryl company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LexisNexis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Kyndryl company.

Kyndryl company employs more people globally than LexisNexis company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Kyndryl holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3300R 17.0.0cu.557_b20221024. This affects the function setLanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument lanIp leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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
Description

Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94.

Description

Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A critical security vulnerability in parisneo/lollms versions up to 2.2.0 allows any authenticated user to accept or reject friend requests belonging to other users. The `respond_request()` function in `backend/routers/friends.py` does not implement proper authorization checks, enabling Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) attacks. Specifically, the `/api/friends/requests/{friendship_id}` endpoint fails to verify whether the authenticated user is part of the friendship or the intended recipient of the request. This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access, privacy violations, and potential social engineering attacks. The issue has been addressed in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms versions prior to 2.2.0, specifically in the `/api/files/export-content` endpoint. The `_download_image_to_temp()` function in `backend/routers/files.py` fails to validate user-controlled URLs, allowing attackers to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This vulnerability can lead to internal network access, cloud metadata access, information disclosure, port scanning, and potentially remote code execution.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N