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
IIFL (India Infoline Group)IIFL (India Infoline Group)
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
IIFL (India Infoline Group)

IIFL (India Infoline Group)

B Wing, Trade Centre, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Off Senapati Bapat Marg,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400013

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

IIFL group is one of India's largest diversified financial services conglomerates with three listed entities - IIFL Finance, IIFL Securities and 360 ONE Wealth & Asset Management. Founded in 1995 by Nirmal Jain as a small research house, today IIFL Group employs over 40...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,736
Subsidiaries:1
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
IIFL (India Infoline Group)

IIFL (India Infoline Group)

-
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 IIFL (India Infoline Group) 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 - IIFL (India Infoline Group) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IIFL (India Infoline Group) 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.
IIFL (India Infoline Group)

IIFL (India Infoline Group)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA