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
DesjardinsDesjardins
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: 23/07/2026

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:46,325
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Desjardins

Desjardins

100, rue des Commandeurs, Lévis, G6V 7N5, CA

Last Update: 17/07/2026

View Profile
483/1000Critical

Desjardins Group is the largest cooperative financial group in North America and the fifth largest cooperative financial group in the world, with assets of $435.8 billion as at March 31, 2024. It was named one of Canada's Best Employers by Forbes magazine and by Mediaco...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:44,288
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
7
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
Desjardins

Desjardins

-
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)

Desjardins has 94.17% more 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 - Desjardins (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Desjardins 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.
Desjardins

Desjardins

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DES1784220391
🔒 Incident : Breach
DESSK-DOL1770631353
🔒 Incident : Breach
DES1767941129

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2