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

Comparison Overview

Apollo Global Management, Inc.Apollo Global Management, Inc.
VS
AllianzAllianz
Apollo Global Management, Inc.

Apollo Global Management, Inc.

9 West 57th Street, New York, New York, US, 10019

Last Update: 04/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.apollo.com
778/1000Fair

Apollo is a high-growth, global alternative asset manager. In our asset management business, we seek to provide our clients excess return at every point along the risk-reward spectrum from investment grade credit to private equity. For more than three decades, our inves...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:5,852
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Allianz

Allianz

Koeniginstrasse 28, Munich, 80802, DE

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
683/1000Weak

The Allianz Group is one of the world's leading insurers and asset managers with more than 100 million private and corporate customers in nearly 70 countries. We are proud to be the Worldwide Insurance Partner of the Olympic & Paralympic Movements from 2021 until 2032 a...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:150,541
Subsidiaries:94
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Apollo Global Management, Inc.

Apollo Global Management, Inc.

-
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
Allianz

Allianz

-
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)

Apollo Global Management, Inc. has 42.86% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Allianz has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Apollo Global Management, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Apollo Global Management, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Allianz 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...
Apollo Global Management, Inc.

Apollo Global Management, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
APOLEVNEU1787336860
Allianz

Allianz

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ALLSALFARTRA1789577043
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MEREQUUNIMAEMGMGOOTOYSNOALLORARIPTIC1775528897
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI0292402112125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2