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

Comparison Overview

Banco FalabellaBanco Falabella
VS
Western UnionWestern Union
Banco Falabella

Banco Falabella

Santiago , Santiago, CL

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
781/1000Fair

Te invitamos a trabajar y disfrutar el Desafío de Crecer en Falabella Financiero, filial del Falabella, compañía con más de 125 años de trayectoria, conformada por Banco, CMR y Seguros Falabella, Fpay y CMR Puntos, con presencia en Chile, Perú, Colombia Argentina y Méxi...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:9,629
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Western Union

Western Union

7001 E Belleview, Denver, CO, US, 80237

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.westernunion.com
735/1000Moderate

Many know us as the most trusted way to send money to friends and family overseas and across borders, but we're much more than that. Our talented teams around the world are building new ways to send, save and spend money. Wherever you are in the world, in whatever cur...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:15,263
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Banco Falabella

Banco Falabella

-
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
Western Union

Western Union

-
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 Banco Falabella in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Western Union in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Banco Falabella (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banco Falabella 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 - Western Union (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Western Union 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...
Banco Falabella

Banco Falabella

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Western Union

Western Union

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
WES838072925
🔒 Incident : Breach
WES10197622

FAQ

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