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

Comparison Overview

Allianz Partners JapanAllianz Partners Japan
VS
HDB Financial Services Ltd.HDB Financial Services Ltd.
Allianz Partners Japan

Allianz Partners Japan

東品川4-12-8, 品川区, 140-0002, JP

Last Update: 27/11/2025

View Profile
754/1000Fair

各種アシスタンス・サービス (自動車関連、ホーム関連、トラベル&レジャーなど) ◆各種カスタマー・サービス(お客様相談サービス等) ◆各種商品販売アフターケア・サービス (車両など耐久消費財の延長保証、メンテナンスパック) ◆各種BPO(事業支援アウトソーシング)サービス ※Allianz Partnersの海外旅行保険に関しましては、日本ではお取扱いをしておりません。お問い合わせは、お申し込み時に記載されているメールアドレスへお願いいたします。

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:107
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
HDB Financial Services Ltd.

HDB Financial Services Ltd.

HDB House, Tukaram Sandam Marg, Mumbai, 400057, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.hdbfs.com
801/1000Good

HDB Financial Services (HDBFS) is a leading Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) that caters to the growing needs of an Aspirational India, serving both Individual & Business Clients The lines of business include - Lending and BPO Services. Incorporated in 2007, HDB is ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:59,916
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Allianz Partners Japan

Allianz Partners Japan

-
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
HDB Financial Services Ltd.

HDB Financial Services Ltd.

-
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 Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Allianz Partners Japan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HDB Financial Services Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Allianz Partners Japan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Allianz Partners Japan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - HDB Financial Services Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HDB Financial Services Ltd. 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...
Allianz Partners Japan

Allianz Partners Japan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
HDB Financial Services Ltd.

HDB Financial Services Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16197
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. The affected element is the function handleMessageReceive of the file pkg/channels/feishu/feishu_64.go of the component Group Message Handler. Such manipulation leads to missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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-2026-16196
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. Impacted is the function isPrivateOrRestrictedIP of the file pkg/tools/integration/web.go of the component web_fetch. This manipulation causes server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 2efbe5d560e7ed9bc5209c203dc4aa6ecdbc7405. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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-2026-16195
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. This issue affects the function dispatchIncoming of the file pkg/channels/wecom/wecom.go of the component Group Message Handler. The manipulation results in incorrect authorization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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-2026-10130
SUMMARY

QueryWeaver contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to obtain valid session tokens for existing accounts by submitting a signup request with a known victim email address. The signup route unconditionally creates and links a new token to the matching Identity via a Cypher MERGE operation before checking whether the email belongs to an existing account, causing the server to return a valid authenticated session token for the victim's identity without requiring any prior credentials or user interaction.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-16194
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in zhayujie CowAgent up to 2.1.1. This affects the function WebFetch.execute of the file agent/tools/web_fetch/web_fetch.py. Executing a manipulation of the argument url can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. Upgrading to version 2.1.2 is able to mitigate this issue. This patch is called ea47f3097eed4f8295c4cb3d76ecb97e0f43d632. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The vendor was contacted early, responded in a very professional manner and quickly released a fixed version of the affected product.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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