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

Comparison Overview

Santander UruguaySantander Uruguay
VS
Allied Bank LimitedAllied Bank Limited
Santander Uruguay

Santander Uruguay

1365 Julio Herrera y Obes, Centro, 11100, UY

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

Somos el equipo de Santander Uruguay. Aquí buscamos construir todos los días el mejor lugar para trabajar, actuando de manera responsable, comprometidos con el progreso de las personas y de las empresas. En este espacio podrás encontrar todas nuestras novedades, mensa...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:263
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Allied Bank Limited

Allied Bank Limited

3 Tipu Block, Main Boulevard, New Garden Town, Lahore–Pakistan, Lahore, 54000, PK

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.abl.com
754/1000Fair

Allied Bank is one of Pakistan's leading banks, with a vision to become a dynamic and efficient institution providing integrated solutions, aiming to be the first choice for customers. Currently, the bank maintains a country-wide network of over 1,400 branches and more ...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:12,383
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Santander Uruguay

Santander Uruguay

-
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
Allied Bank Limited

Allied Bank Limited

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Santander Uruguay in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Allied Bank Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Santander Uruguay (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Santander Uruguay cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Allied Bank Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Allied Bank Limited 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...
Santander Uruguay

Santander Uruguay

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Allied Bank Limited

Allied Bank Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8