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

Comparison Overview

Allianz Trade in The NetherlandsAllianz Trade in The Netherlands
VS
DiscoverDiscover
Allianz Trade in The Netherlands

Allianz Trade in The Netherlands

Brabantlaan 2, 's-Hertogenbosch, 5216 TV, NL

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
www.allianz-trade.nl
754/1000Fair

As the world's largest provider of credit insurance, we help companies of all sizes conduct business at home and abroad with confidence.​ ​With over 100 years of experience, a global leader in financial services, our expertise has won the trust of our global clients – ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:69
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Discover

Discover

2500 Lake Cook Road, Riverwoods, IL, US, 60015

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.discover.com
604/1000Poor

Discover® is now part of Capital One. Together, we’ll continue to deliver exceptional financial products and experiences, drive innovation, and serve customers. Find the latest updates at https://capitalonediscover.com. Discover is one of the most recognized brands in ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:19,187
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
33
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Allianz Trade in The Netherlands

Allianz Trade in The Netherlands

-
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
Discover

Discover

-
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 Trade in The Netherlands in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Discover in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Allianz Trade in The Netherlands (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Allianz Trade in The Netherlands cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Discover (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Discover cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Allianz Trade in The Netherlands

Allianz Trade in The Netherlands

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Discover

Discover

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DIS631072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
DIS406072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
DIS027091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-7654
SUMMARY

The Admin Columns plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection leading to Remote Code Execution in versions up to and including 7.0.18. This is due to the use of `unserialize()` without an `allowed_classes` restriction in the `IdsToCollection::get_ids_from_string()` function, which processes attacker-controlled post meta values without proper validation. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject a serialized PHP object into a post's custom meta field and trigger arbitrary code execution by exploiting a bundled POP gadget chain, resulting in remote code execution as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-7523
SUMMARY

The Alba Board plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to access arbitrary private alba_card post data, including title, description, assignee, due date, tags, and comments, that is intended to be restricted to Administrators and Editors. The handler is registered via the wp_ajax_nopriv_ hook and its nonce is exposed to all site visitors through wp_localize_script on pages containing the [alba_board] shortcode, making this exploitable by unauthenticated users who can access any such page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-45409
SUMMARY

Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) for Python provides support for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) and Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing. In versions prior to 3.15, payloads such as `"\u0660" * N` or `"\u30fb" * N + "\u6f22"` utilize the `valid_contexto` function prior to length rejection, and for high values of `N` will take a long time to process. This is the same issue as CVE-2024-3651, however the original remediation in 2024 was not a complete fix. A specially crafted argument to the `idna.encode()` function could consume significant resources. This may lead to a denial-of-service. Starting in version 3.14, the function rejects long inputs as soon as practicable prior to any further processing to minimize resource consumption. In version 3.15, this approach was extended to lesser used alternate functions (i.e. per-label conversions and codec support). A workaround is available. Domain names cannot exceed 253 characters in length. If this length limit is enforced prior to passing the domain to the `idna.encode()` function, it should no longer consume significant resources. This is triggered by arbitrarily large inputs that would not occur in normal usage, but may be passed to the library assuming there is no preliminary input validation by the higher-level application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11431
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Projects Service download endpoint shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. An authenticated user can supply a crafted path parameter that bypasses validation, allowing arbitrary files (including entire directories returned as archives) to be read from the server filesystem. Because the readable files include service configuration and credential material, exploitation can be used to gather information enabling further compromise. The issue can be combined with CVE-2026-11424 to reach the cloud-side endpoint. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, the readable configuration could have exposed credentials shared across services. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11429
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Git Service component shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. The service accepts a sequence of post-clone file-manipulation operations that use user-supplied paths without validation, allowing an authenticated user with basic git access to move arbitrary files outside the intended repository area. This file-move primitive can be used to place attacker-controlled script content into directories where it is later executed by the service, resulting in remote code execution under the Git Service account. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, this could have allowed access to data belonging to other tenants on the same infrastructure node. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA