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

Comparison Overview

Arval BNP Paribas GroupArval BNP Paribas Group
VS
VanguardVanguard
Arval BNP Paribas Group

Arval BNP Paribas Group

22 rue des Deux-Gares, Rueil-Malmaison, 92564, FR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
778/1000Fair

Arval specialises in full-service vehicle leasing and new mobility solutions, leasing more than 1.82 million vehicles at the end of June 2025. Every day, almost 8,600 Arval employees in 28 countries offer flexible solutions to ensure seamless and sustainable journeys fo...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:8,345
Subsidiaries:35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vanguard

Vanguard

100 Vanguard Blvd, Valley Forge, 19482, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.vanguard.com
796/1000Fair

We are a community of 50 million who think—and feel—differently about investing. Together, we’re changing the way the world invests. For over 50 years, Vanguard has helped people pursue their financial goals with a spotlight on long-term value and low costs. We’ve mad...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:26,081
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Arval BNP Paribas Group

Arval BNP Paribas Group

-
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
Vanguard

Vanguard

-
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 Arval BNP Paribas Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vanguard in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Arval BNP Paribas Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arval BNP Paribas Group 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 - Vanguard (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vanguard 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...
Arval BNP Paribas Group

Arval BNP Paribas Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vanguard

Vanguard

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-8023
SUMMARY

Zephyr's HTTP server (subsys/net/lib/http) provides a static-filesystem resource type (HTTP_RESOURCE_TYPE_STATIC_FS, available when CONFIG_FILE_SYSTEM is enabled) that serves files from a configured root directory. Before this fix, both the HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 front-ends placed the raw, attacker-controlled request path into client-url_buffer (assembled in on_url() for HTTP/1 and copied verbatim from the :path pseudo-header for HTTP/2) without resolving ./.. segments. The static-FS handler then built the on-disk filename by directly concatenating the configured root with that raw URL (snprintk(fname, ..., "%s%s", static_fs_detail-fs_path, client-url_buffer) at http_server_http1.c:603 and http_server_http2.c:490) and opened it with fs_open(fname, FS_O_READ). Because the handler is reached via wildcard/leading-dir (fnmatch FNM_LEADING_DIR) or fallback resource matching, a request such as GET /<prefix/../../<file is dispatched to the handler and, after the underlying filesystem (e.g. LittleFS/FAT) resolves the .. segments, escapes the configured web root, letting an unauthenticated remote client read arbitrary readable files on the mounted volume (information disclosure). The HTTP server requires no TLS or authentication to reach this path. The fix adds http_server_remove_dot_segments(), which canonicalizes the path portion of the URL before resource lookup in both protocol handlers, neutralizing the traversal. Affects releases v4.0.0 through v4.4.0 for deployments that register a static-filesystem resource.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-7656
SUMMARY

The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery handlers in subsys/net/ip/ipv6_nbr.c (handle_ra_input, handle_ns_input, handle_na_input) used an incorrect boolean expression that combined the RFC 4861 validity checks with the ICMPv6 code check using the wrong operator precedence: the form was '((length/hop/source/target checks) && (icmp_hdr-code != 0))'. Because every legitimate ND message carries ICMPv6 code 0, an attacker setting code == 0 (the normal value) caused the entire predicate to evaluate false, so the packet was never dropped and all of the other checks were silently skipped. The bypassed checks include the mandatory Hop Limit == 255 verification (which proves an ND packet originated on-link and was not forwarded) and, for Router Advertisements, the requirement that the source be a link-local address, as well as multicast-target sanity checks. As a result, an adjacent on-link attacker — and, because the Hop-Limit-255 guard is bypassed, potentially a remote/off-link attacker whose packets would otherwise be rejected — can have forged Router Advertisement, Neighbor Solicitation, and Neighbor Advertisement messages accepted. A forged RA lets the attacker reconfigure the victim's default router, on-link prefixes (SLAAC), MTU, reachable/retransmit timers, and (with CONFIG_NET_IPV6_RA_RDNSS) DNS servers, while forged NS/NA enable neighbor-cache poisoning, enabling man-in-the-middle, traffic redirection, and denial of service. The flaw is an input-validation/authentication weakness rather than a memory-safety issue: the underlying packet-parsing primitives (net_pkt_get_data, net_pkt_read, net_pkt_skip) are independently bounds-safe and the validated 'length' is the true buffer length, so skipping the length check causes no out-of-bounds access. The defect has existed since the logic was introduced in 2018 and shipped in all releases through v4.4.0; it is fixed by splitting the condition so any failing check drops the packet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-51219
SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the HighPriorityASDUQueue_hasUnconfirmedIMessages function of lib60870 v2.3.3 to v2.3.6 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted payload.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-51218
SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the TS7Worker::PerformFunctionWrite() function (/core/s7_server.cpp) of snap7 v1.4.3 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted packet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-10648
SUMMARY

mcumgr_serial_process_frag() in subsys/mgmt/mcumgr/transport/src/serial_util.c calls net_buf_reset() on the result of smp_packet_alloc() before checking it for NULL. smp_packet_alloc() uses net_buf_alloc(K_NO_WAIT) against the shared MCUmgr packet pool (CONFIG_MCUMGR_TRANSPORT_NETBUF_COUNT, default 4), which returns NULL when the pool is exhausted. In default builds the __ASSERT_NO_MSG in net_buf_reset is a no-op, so net_buf_simple_reset writes through the NULL pointer (buf->len = 0; buf->data = buf->__buf), causing a fault/crash. The fragment data reaches this code from attacker-controlled bytes on the MCUmgr serial/UART/shell-console transports (smp_uart.c, smp_raw_uart.c, smp_shell.c), and a fresh buffer is allocated at the start of essentially every new packet. An attacker on the serial/console link can flood the transport to drive the 4-entry buffer pool to exhaustion and induce the NULL dereference, crashing the device (denial of service). The defect was introduced after the original MCUmgr rework and shipped in Zephyr v4.4.0. The fix moves the NULL check ahead of net_buf_reset.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5