Comparison Overview

TransUnion

VS

eClerx

TransUnion

Chicago, Illinois, US
Last Update: 2026-03-25
Between 0 and 549

TransUnion is a global information and insights company that makes trust possible in the modern economy. We do this by providing an actionable picture of each person so they can be reliably represented in the marketplace. As a result, businesses and consumers can transact with confidence and achieve great things. This picture is grounded in our legacy as a credit reporting agency which enables us to tap into both credit and public record data; our data fusion methodology that helps us link, match and tap into the awesome combined power of that data; and our knowledgeable and passionate team, who stewards the information with expertise, and in accordance with local legislation around the world. A leading presence in more than 30 countries across five continents, TransUnion provides solutions that help create economic opportunity, great experiences and personal empowerment for hundreds of millions of people. We call this Information for Good® — it’s our purpose, and what drives us every day. Contact Us Customer support: https://transu.co/60024D64I Business support: https://transu.co/60044D67G

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 16,669
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
2

eClerx

29 Bank Street, Fort, 1st Floor, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400 023
Last Update: 2026-03-23
Between 750 and 799

eClerx is a productized services company, bringing together people, technology and domain expertise to amplify business results. Our mission is to set the benchmark for client service and success in our industry. Our vision is to be the innovation partner of choice for technology, data analytics and process management services.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 19,162
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/transunion.jpeg
TransUnion
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/eclerx.jpeg
eClerx
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
TransUnion
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
eClerx
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for TransUnion in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for eClerx in 2026.

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

TransUnion cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

eClerx cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/transunion.jpeg
TransUnion
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Application Exploitation, OAuth Abuse, Malicious Integrations
Motivation: Data Theft, Extortion, Financial Gain, Data Exfiltration for Underground Sales
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eclerx.jpeg
eClerx
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, eClerx company and TransUnion company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither eClerx company nor TransUnion company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither eClerx company nor TransUnion company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither TransUnion company nor eClerx company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

TransUnion company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to eClerx company.

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

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds HIPAA certification.

Neither TransUnion nor eClerx holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A flaw has been found in wandb OpenUI up to 1.0. This affects the function create_share/get_share of the file backend/openui/server.py of the component HTMLAnnotator Component. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to HTML injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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

A vulnerability was detected in QDOCS Smart School Management System up to 7.2. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /admin/enquiry of the component Admission Enquiry Module. Performing a manipulation of the argument Note results in cross site scripting. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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

The Ultimate Member plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.11.2. This is due to the '{usermeta:password_reset_link}' template tag being processed within post content via the '[um_loggedin]' shortcode, which generates a valid password reset token for the currently logged-in user viewing the page. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to craft a malicious pending post that, when previewed by an Administrator, generates a password reset token for the Administrator and exfiltrates it to an attacker-controlled server, leading to full account takeover.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

LibJWT is a C JSON Web Token Library. Starting in version 3.0.0 and prior to version 3.3.0, the JWK parsing for RSA-PSS did not protect against a NULL value when expecting to parse JSON string values. A specially crafted JWK file could exploit this behavior by using integers in places where the code expected a string. This was fixed in v3.3.0. A workaround is available. Users importing keys through a JWK file should not do so from untrusted sources. Use the `jwk2key` tool to check for validity of a JWK file. Likewise, if possible, do not use JWK files with RSA-PSS keys.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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

Locutus brings stdlibs of other programming languages to JavaScript for educational purposes. Starting in version 2.0.39 and prior to version 3.0.25, a prototype pollution vulnerability exists in the `parse_str` function of the npm package locutus. An attacker can pollute `Object.prototype` by overriding `RegExp.prototype.test` and then passing a crafted query string to `parse_str`, bypassing the prototype pollution guard. This vulnerability stems from an incomplete fix for CVE-2026-25521. The CVE-2026-25521 patch replaced the `String.prototype.includes()`-based guard with a `RegExp.prototype.test()`-based guard. However, `RegExp.prototype.test` is itself a writable prototype method that can be overridden, making the new guard bypassable in the same way as the original — trading one hijackable built-in for another. Version 3.0.25 contains an updated fix.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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