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

Comparison Overview

ATL Insurance GroupATL Insurance Group
VS
PortoPorto
ATL Insurance Group

ATL Insurance Group

643 MacGregor St, Upper Mount Gravatt, 4122, AU

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://atlinsurance.com.au/
749/1000Moderate

With over 15 years of experience, ATL Insurance Group is a niche transport operator underwriting agency, delivering comprehensive Heavy Motor Transport insurance solutions and expertise. We partner with brokers to ensure transport operators receive the best coverage and...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:22
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Porto

Porto

Avenida Rio Branco, 1489, Sao Paulo, SP, BR, 01205-001

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://porto.vc/linkedin
654/1000Weak

A Porto é mais que uma seguradora, é um ecossistema de soluções de serviços de proteção com tecnologia embarcada, para melhorar e facilitar a experiência do cliente. Com mais de 70 anos de mercado, a atuação da companhia se concentra hoje em quatro pilares estratégicos ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:24,464
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ATL Insurance Group

ATL Insurance 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
Porto

Porto

-
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 Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ATL Insurance Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Porto in 2026.

Incidents

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

ATL Insurance Group 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 - Porto (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Porto 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...
ATL Insurance Group

ATL Insurance Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Porto

Porto

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POR3692036090725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POR4102041102125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/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
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/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
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8