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
Marsh McLennanMarsh McLennan
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
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, US, 10036

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
808/1000Good

Marsh (NYSE: MRSH) is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh Risk, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue over $24 billion and more than 90,000 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:45,730
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

-
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 Marsh McLennan 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 - Marsh McLennan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marsh McLennan 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
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
MAR18242223
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR307072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
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-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/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