Comparison Overview

UST

VS

Reply

UST

5 Polaris Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, US, 92656
Last Update: 2026-03-27
Between 800 and 849

UST is a global digital transformation solutions provider. For more than 20 years, UST has worked side by side with the world’s best companies to make a real impact through transformation. Powered by technology, inspired by people and led by purpose, UST partners with their clients from design to operation. With deep domain expertise and a future-proof philosophy, UST embeds innovation and agility into their clients’ organizations. With over 30K+ employees in 30+ countries, UST builds for boundless impact—touching billions of lives in the process.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 39,758
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Reply

C.so Francia, 110, Turin, 10143, IT
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 750 and 799

Reply [EXM, STAR: REY] specialises in the design and implementation of solutions based on new communication channels and digital media. As a network of highly specialised companies, Reply defines and develops business models enabled by the new models of AI, big data, cloud computing, digital media and the internet of things. Reply delivers consulting, system integration and digital services to organisations across the telecom and media; industry and services; banking and insurance; and public sectors.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 16,816
Subsidiaries: 117
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ustglobal.jpeg
UST
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/reply.jpeg
Reply
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
UST
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Reply
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 UST in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Reply in 2026.

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

UST cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ustglobal.jpeg
UST
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/reply.jpeg
Reply
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Reply company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to UST company.

In the current year, Reply company and UST company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Reply company nor UST company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Reply company nor UST company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Reply company nor UST company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UST company nor Reply company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UST nor Reply holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Reply company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to UST company.

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

Neither UST nor Reply holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UST nor Reply holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UST nor Reply holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UST nor Reply holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UST nor Reply holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UST nor Reply 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