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

Comparison Overview

BakktBakkt
VS
PING ANPING AN
Bakkt

Bakkt

10000 Avalon Blvd, Alpharetta, 30009, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bakkt.com
752/1000Fair

Founded in 2018, Bakkt builds crypto technology that enables businesses to grow with the crypto economy. Through institutional-grade custody, trading, and onramp capabilities, our clients leverage technology that’s built for sustainable, long-term involvement in crypto....

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:417
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PING AN

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518046, CN

Last Update: 18/08/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://group.pingan.com/
829/1000Good

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services an...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:51,286
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bakkt

Bakkt

-
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
PING AN

PING AN

-
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 Bakkt in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PING AN in 2026.

Incidents

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

Bakkt 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 - PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN 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...
Bakkt

Bakkt

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PING AN

PING AN

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-9693
SUMMARY

Mattermost versions 10.11.x <= 10.11.20, 11.7.x <= 11.7.5 Mattermost fails to remove thread membership records when a user is removed from or leaves a team, which allows a previously removed user who is later re-invited to the team to view private channel thread root post content and metadata via the team threads API.. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2026-00682

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-17
UPDATED
Date2026-08-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-75587
SUMMARY

Mattermost Desktop App versions <=6.2 6.2.2.0 fail to redact the pre-auth secret when generating a diagnostics report, which allows a local attacker with access to a user's diagnostics report or log files to obtain the plaintext pre-auth secret configured for a connected server via inspecting the Server Connectivity (Step-3) diagnostics output. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2026-00716

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-17
UPDATED
Date2026-08-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-75078
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Class and Exam Timetabling System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /BSHRM1.php. Performing a manipulation of the argument course results in cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-17
UPDATED
Date2026-08-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-67961
SUMMARY

An issue in O2OA v.10.0.2 allows a local attacker to execute arbitrary code via the the sandbox mechanism of the Invoke script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-17
UPDATED
Date2026-08-17
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-67919
SUMMARY

An issue in Halo 2.25.4 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the PluginEndpoint.java, installFromUri method, and DefaultPluginApplicationContextFactory components

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-17
UPDATED
Date2026-08-17
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
REFERENCES