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

Comparison Overview

幣託集團 BitoGroup幣託集團 BitoGroup
VS
BlackRockBlackRock
幣託集團 BitoGroup

幣託集團 BitoGroup

37F., No. 7, Sec. 5, Xinyi Rd., Xinyi Dist., Taipei City, TW

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.bitopro.com
718/1000Moderate

幣託集團(BitoGroup)成立於2014年,致力於用最簡單的方式讓區塊鏈進入每個人的日常生活,並協助企業與消費者進入Web3時代。幣託集團致力於運用區塊鏈和高頻交易技術,積極打造創新的金融基礎設施。集團旗下擁有多元化業務,包括BitoPro加密貨幣交易所、NFT賦能平台BELS,以及O2 META。 BitoPro為全臺第一家安全、穩定且易於使用的加密貨幣交易所,BitoPro提供加密貨幣錢包和交易所的區塊鏈服務。此外,亦支援在超商購買或點數兌換加密貨幣。BitoPro支援多種主流幣種,如ETH(以太幣)、USDT(泰達幣)、DO...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:75
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
BlackRock

BlackRock

50 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, US, 10001

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.blackrock.com
826/1000Good

BlackRock is a global asset manager and technology provider dedicated to helping more and more people experience financial well-being. We help millions of people invest to build savings that serve them throughout their lives. We always start with our clients’ needs a...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:32,259
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
幣託集團 BitoGroup

幣託集團 BitoGroup

-
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
BlackRock

BlackRock

-
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 幣託集團 BitoGroup in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BlackRock in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 幣託集團 BitoGroup (X = Date, Y = Severity)

幣託集團 BitoGroup cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

BlackRock 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...
幣託集團 BitoGroup

幣託集團 BitoGroup

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BIT301062025
BlackRock

BlackRock

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BLA01216223

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-65388
SUMMARY

A remote attacker who controls a container registry may be able to direct a client's token request to a host of the attacker's choice, and disclose the victim's registry credentials to that host. This vulnerability is addressed in containerization version 0.41.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-61599
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the djust live transport resolves the LiveView to mount from a client-supplied dotted path by calling `__import__(module_path, ...)`. The module is imported — running its top-level code (import side effects) — before the framework checks that the resolved object is a `LiveView` subclass and before any per-view authentication. The `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` allowlist that should contain this is fail-open (`if allowed_modules:` — skipped when the setting is unset, the framework default) and uses loose `startswith` matching. An unauthenticated WebSocket client (the WS handshake does not require auth; per-view auth runs only after import + instantiate) can therefore send a `mount` / `live_redirect_mount` / `url_change` frame (or an SSE mount) with `view = "<any.importable.module>.AnyName"` and cause the server to import — and execute the top-level code of — any importable Python module by name. Version 1.0.7 fixes the issue with a fail-closed resolution gate (`djust._view_resolution.is_view_import_allowed`): a client view path resolves only if (a) its module is already loaded (`sys.modules` — so resolving runs no new code; URL-routed views loaded by URLconf at startup keep working with zero config) or (b) it matches `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` on a module-segment boundary (explicit opt-in for lazily-imported views). The gate runs before `__import__` at all three sinks (+ defense-in-depth inside `_instantiate_view`). As a workaround, set `LIVEVIEW_ALLOWED_MODULES` to the narrow list of modules that contain your mountable LiveView classes. (Note: pre-patch the allowlist is `startswith`-matched and the import still precedes the subclass check, so this is mitigation, not a complete fix.)

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-61596
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, djust's per-object authorization (`get_object` + `has_object_permission`, ADR-017) was enforced on the WebSocket mount and event paths but not on three other render entry points: (a) the initial HTTP GET render, (b) SPA `url_change` navigation, and (c) `{% live_render %}` embedded child views. An authenticated user could therefore view (and on some paths act on) an object they are not authorized for by loading the page directly, navigating to it via SPA url-change, or composing it as an embedded child — a classic IDOR / broken object-level access control on object-scoped views. This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. All render entry points now route through a shared `enforce_object_permission` chokepoint: HTTP GET returns 403, `url_change` emits a `permission_denied` frame and skips the render, and `{% live_render %}` (eager + lazy) refuses the embed. Views without a custom `get_object` are unaffected (no-op). No reliable workaround short of upgrading. Do not expose object-scoped views through the HTTP-GET / url_change / live_render paths until patched.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-61589
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, the WebSocket `handle_mount` and `ViewRuntime._build_request` rebuild an `HttpRequest` via `RequestFactory().get(...)` with no `HTTP_HOST`, so `request.get_host()` defaulted to `"testserver"` on the live path. Host/subdomain/domain `TenantResolver`s then misresolved the tenant — `None` on the live path while the HTTP path resolved correctly. With `STRICT_MODE=False` the tenant-scoped managers returned unscoped rows (cross-tenant disclosure); with the default they returned an empty queryset (broken tenancy). This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. The handshake Host is extracted from the ASGI scope, validated against `ALLOWED_HOSTS` (the same logic as the CSWSH Origin gate, parsed with Django's `split_domain_port` so malformed Hosts are rejected at the boundary), and propagated — with the TLS scheme — into the reconstructed request, so live-path tenant resolution matches HTTP exactly. There is no known workaround on the live path short of upgrading. Users are most exposed when combined with `STRICT_MODE=False`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-61588
SUMMARY

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, when a Django `Model` instance is assigned to a public view attribute, djust serialized it to the client with no sensitive-field denylist — sending fields such as `password` (the hash), privilege flags (e.g. `is_staff` / `is_superuser`), tokens, and other PII to the browser. Because exposing model objects to templates is a normal djust pattern, this could leak credentials/PII without the developer realizing the full object crossed the wire. This is fixed in djust 1.0.7. Model serialization applies a secure-by-default sensitive-field denylist (password/hash/token/secret-style fields and known privilege flags are withheld) with an identity-subset fallback. As a workaround, keep `Model` instances on `_private` attributes and expose only the specific fields needed, until patched.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-16
UPDATED
Date2026-09-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8