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

Comparison Overview

81 Property Management81 Property Management
VS
SM SupermallsSM Supermalls
81 Property Management

81 Property Management

2nd floor L&H Building, Makati, undefined, 1230, PH

Last Update: 21/01/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://81property.com/
845/1000Good

81 Property Management is a Japanese-owned company and is one of the fastest-growing property management firms in the Philippines. With a track of managing and maintaining various residential and commercial properties across Metro Manila and Metro Cebu. 81 Property Man...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:49
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SM Supermalls

SM Supermalls

Mall of Asia Complex, Pasay City, 1300, PH

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
784/1000Fair

The SM Group of companies stands today as an institution, a store, a mall, a bank, a home, a resort, a hotel, and a place to see and experience with the family. One of the core business areas of the SM Group is the Shopping Center Management Corporation, generally ref...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:13,749
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
81 Property Management

81 Property Management

-
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
SM Supermalls

SM Supermalls

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 81 Property Management in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SM Supermalls in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 81 Property Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

81 Property Management 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 - SM Supermalls (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SM Supermalls 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...
81 Property Management

81 Property Management

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SM Supermalls

SM Supermalls

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 81 Property Management company and SM Supermalls company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 81 Property Management and SM Supermalls, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 81 Property Management and SM Supermalls, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 81 Property Management or SM Supermalls ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 81 Property Management or SM Supermalls ?
Between 81 Property Management and SM Supermalls, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 81 Property Management and SM Supermalls, 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