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

Comparison Overview

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLCAmeriprise Financial Services, LLC
VS
OTP GroupOTP Group
Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC

707 2nd Ave S, Minneapolis, MN, US, 55402

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
531/1000Critical

At Ameriprise Financial, we have been helping people feel more confident about their financial future for over 130 years. With extensive investment advice, asset management and insurance capabilities and a nationwide network of approximately 10,000 financial advisors*, ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:17,552
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
2
OTP Group

OTP Group

Nádor u., Budapest, 1051, HU

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

OTP Group is one of the fastest growing, leading independent banking groups in Central and Eastern Europe with a bridgehead in Central Asia. It operates in 11 countries - 10 in CEE region and 1 in Uzbekistan, employing nearly 40,000 people and providing universal finan...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,040
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC

-
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
OTP Group

OTP 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)

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC has 44.75% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OTP Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - OTP Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OTP 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...
Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AME1776789651
🔒 Incident : Breach
AME1767368489
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318
OTP Group

OTP Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2