Comparison Overview

LexisNexis

VS

Zoom

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

Zoom

55 Almaden Blvd., 6th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113, San Jose, CA, US, 95113
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 750 and 799

Bring teams together, reimagine workspaces, engage new audiences, and delight your customers –– all on the Zoom AI-first work platform you know and love. 💙 Zoomies help people stay connected so they can get more done together. We set out on a mission to make video communications frictionless and secure by building the world’s best video product for the enterprise, but we didn’t stop there. With products like AI Companion, Team Chat, Contact Center, Phone, Events, Rooms, Webinar, Contact Center and more, we bring innovation to a wide variety of customers, from the conference room to the classroom, from doctor’s offices to financial institutions to government agencies, from global brands to small businesses. We do what we do because of our core value of Care: care for our community, our customers, our company, our teammates, and ourselves. Our global employees help our customers meet happier, communicate better, and create meaningful connections the world over. Zoomies are problem-solvers and self-starters, working hard to get results and moving quickly to design solutions with our customers and users in mind. Here, you'll find room to grow with opportunities to stretch your skills and advance your career in a collaborative, growth-focused environment. Learn more about careers at Zoom by visiting our careers site: https://careers.zoom.us/home

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 12,708
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

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/zoom.jpeg
Zoom
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
Zoom
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)

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

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

LexisNexis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Zoom 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/zoom.jpeg
Zoom
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Malicious prompts in emails, Malicious calendar invites
Motivation: Espionage, Data exfiltration, Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Buffer Overflow
Motivation: Disruption of Service
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

LexisNexis company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Zoom company.

In the current year, Zoom and LexisNexis have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

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

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

Zoom company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while LexisNexis company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Zoom company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while LexisNexis company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LexisNexis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Zoom company.

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

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LexisNexis nor Zoom 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