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

Comparison Overview

Brown Brothers HarrimanBrown Brothers Harriman
VS
SicrediSicredi
Brown Brothers Harriman

Brown Brothers Harriman

140 Broadway, New York, 10005, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bbh.com
712/1000Moderate

Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) is a global financial services firm known for premium service and specialist expertise. Founded in 1818, we have a 200-year track record helping clients innovate and navigate complex financial markets. As a private partnership, we are uniqu...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:6,708
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Sicredi

Sicredi

Av. Assis Brasil, Porto Alegre, 91010-003, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
807/1000Good

We are born collaborative We believe that change is only possible when everyone works together for the same purpose, after all, cooperativism is in our DNA. Besides this, we know that as important as it is to provide affordable financial solutions it is just as importa...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:20,517
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Brown Brothers Harriman

Brown Brothers Harriman

-
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
Sicredi

Sicredi

-
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 Brown Brothers Harriman in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sicredi in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Brown Brothers Harriman (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brown Brothers Harriman cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Sicredi 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...
Brown Brothers Harriman

Brown Brothers Harriman

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRO0322522
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRO734072925
Sicredi

Sicredi

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2