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

Comparison Overview

Amalfi CapitalAmalfi Capital
VS
M&T BankM&T Bank
Amalfi Capital

Amalfi Capital

London, GB

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Amalfi Capital is UK based investment banking firm that serves professional and institutional clients. Amalfi Capital provides comprehensive, tailored solutions, including wealth structuring and asset protection, investment management and advisory, asset financing, cor...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:11
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

345 Main St., Buffalo, 14203, US

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.mtb.com
669/1000Weak

Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footpr...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:30,274
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Amalfi Capital

Amalfi Capital

-
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
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

-
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 Amalfi Capital in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

M&T Bank has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Amalfi Capital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amalfi Capital 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 - M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M&T Bank 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...
Amalfi Capital

Amalfi Capital

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TTHI1776869694
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TLAW1776869766

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-14776
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function pathinfo of the file /upload_files.php of the component Filename Extension. Performing a manipulation results in unrestricted upload. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-14775
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /process_lesson.php. Such manipulation of the argument user_id leads to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-14774
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /paymentdischarge.php. This manipulation of the argument patientid causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-14773
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /payment.php. The manipulation of the argument patientid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-10657
SUMMARY

Zephyr's DNS resolver detects mDNS (.local) queries in dns_resolve_name_internal() (subsys/net/lib/dns/resolve.c) with memcmp(strrchr(query, '.'), ".local", 7), which always reads a fixed 7 bytes from the suffix pointer. When the resolved hostname's final label is shorter than 7 bytes (e.g. names ending in .org, .com, .net, .io, or a trailing dot), the comparison reads 1-2 bytes past the string's NUL terminator. The hostname (query) is the caller-supplied name passed through the standard getaddrinfo()/dns_get_addr_info()/dns_resolve_name() path and is influenceable by operators or remote inputs (server names from configuration, parsed URLs, or app-facing interfaces). On a tightly-sized buffer with no slack (for example a userspace getaddrinfo call where the hostname is copied with k_usermode_string_alloc_copy to exactly strlen+1 bytes), the over-read crosses the allocation boundary; if that boundary is unmapped (guard page, memory-domain boundary under MPU, or an address sanitizer) the over-read faults, causing a denial of service. The over-read bytes are never returned, so there is no information disclosure. The flaw is compiled only when CONFIG_MDNS_RESOLVER is enabled, exists since v1.10.0, and is fixed by replacing the fixed-length memcmp with a NUL-safe strcmp(ptr, ".local").

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2