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

Comparison Overview

Boston FinancialBoston Financial
VS
Capital GroupCapital Group
Boston Financial

Boston Financial

225 Franklin Street, Boston, MA, 02110, US

Last Update: 23/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.boston.financial
755/1000Fair

Boston Financial Boston Financial is a national leader in the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) industry, with a proven track record in syndication services as well as asset and portfolio management. Serving as a trusted partner, we foster investments in housing t...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:248
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Capital Group

Capital Group

333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA, US, 90071

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

Capital Group was established in 1931 in Los Angeles, California, and now has 31 offices around the globe. For over 90 years we've provided carefully researched investment solutions and services to financial professionals. *** We've been made aware of an employment sca...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,554
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Boston Financial

Boston Financial

-
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
Capital Group

Capital 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Boston Financial in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Capital Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Boston Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Capital Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Capital Group 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...
Boston Financial

Boston Financial

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Capital Group

Capital Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA