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

Comparison Overview

PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.
VS
alrajhi bankalrajhi bank
PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.

PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.

Jalan Jenderal Sudirman, Kav 54-55, Jakarta, Special capital Region of Jakarta, ID, 12190

Last Update: 23/05/2026

View Profile
802/1000Good

Bank Mandiri was established on 2 October 1998, as part of the bank restructuring program of the Government of Indonesia. In July 1999, four state-owned banks - Bank Bumi Daya, Bank Dagang Negara, Bank Exim and Bapindo - were amalgamated into Bank Mandiri. The history o...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:44,114
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
alrajhi bank

alrajhi bank

King Fahad Branch Road, Al Rajhi Tower, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, SA, 11411

Last Update: 04/05/2026

View Profile
768/1000Fair

Founded in 1957, Al Rajhi Bank is one of the largest Islamic banks in the world with total assets of SR 384 billion (US$ 102 billion), a paid up capital of SR 25 billion (US$ 6.66 billion) and an employee base of over 9,600 associates. With over 58 years of experience i...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:13,008
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.

PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.

-
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
alrajhi bank

alrajhi bank

-
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 PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

alrajhi bank has 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk. 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 - alrajhi bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

alrajhi bank 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...
PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.

PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
alrajhi bank

alrajhi bank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BATALRABU1777926903

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3