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

Comparison Overview

BNP Paribas Factor PortugalBNP Paribas Factor Portugal
VS
Santander USSantander US
BNP Paribas Factor Portugal

BNP Paribas Factor Portugal

PT

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://factor.bnpparibas.pt
756/1000Fair

A BNP PARIBAS FACTOR, estabelecida em 1987 em Portugal, é uma empresa do Grupo BNP Paribas especialista em gestão de faturas, financiamento de curto prazo e seguro de crédito à empresas. Prestamos serviços de factoring às empresas de qualquer dimensão ou de qualquer se...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:77
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Santander US

Santander US

75 State Street, Boston, 02109, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.santanderus.com
780/1000Fair

Santander’s purpose is to help people and businesses prosper. In the United States, Santander is a leading financial services provider with approximately 11,000 employees, 4.3 million customers, and assets of $243 billion, as of Q4 2025. Our five diverse and growing bu...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:13,831
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BNP Paribas Factor Portugal

BNP Paribas Factor Portugal

-
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
Santander US

Santander US

-
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 BNP Paribas Factor Portugal in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Santander US in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BNP Paribas Factor Portugal (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BNP Paribas Factor Portugal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Santander US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Santander US 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...
BNP Paribas Factor Portugal

BNP Paribas Factor Portugal

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Santander US

Santander US

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2