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

Comparison Overview

Andersen in the United KingdomAndersen in the United Kingdom
VS
J.P. MorganJ.P. Morgan
Andersen in the United Kingdom

Andersen in the United Kingdom

2 George Yard, London, EC3V 9DH, GB

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://uk.Andersen.com
753/1000Fair

Andersen in The United Kingdom provides a wide range of UK and US tax services to private clients and businesses, helping them achieve their personal and commercial objectives in a tax efficient manner. Located in London, the firm is a member of Andersen Global, an i...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:46
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan

270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10017

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.jpmorgan.com
811/1000Good

J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:82,484
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Andersen in the United Kingdom

Andersen in the United Kingdom

-
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
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan

-
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 Andersen in the United Kingdom in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

J.P. Morgan has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Andersen in the United Kingdom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Andersen in the United Kingdom 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 - J.P. Morgan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.P. Morgan 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...
Andersen in the United Kingdom

Andersen in the United Kingdom

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NYLJPMOUTOUT1773678705
🔒 Incident : Breach
JPM004091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82424
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PHPGurukul Student Information System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /student_edit1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-82423
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /order/paySuccess of the component Payment Status Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument orderId leads to enforcement of behavioral workflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The vendor deleted the GitHub issue for this vulnerability without any explanation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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:N/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82422
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /pages/emp_del.php. The manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-82421
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /pages/emp_edit.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-15369
SUMMARY

The Custom User Registration Fields for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to, and including, 2.2.3. This is due to the plugin accepting an attacker-controlled afreg_select_user_role value from the unauthenticated WooCommerce Store API /wc/store/v1/checkout request in the af_reg_checkout_data_to_order_meta_data_block() function, persisting it in order meta, and then passing it directly to WP_User::add_role() in the af_reg_custom_order_processing_function() function (hooked to woocommerce_thankyou) without validating against the plugin's admin-configured allowed role list. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to elevate their privileges to Administrator by creating an account during checkout with a modified JSON body specifying administrator (or any other role slug) as the desired role. Note: The exploit requires the "User Role Selection" setting to be enabled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9