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

Comparison Overview

Carat from FiservCarat from Fiserv
VS
MassMutualMassMutual
Carat from Fiserv

Carat from Fiserv

255 Fiserv Drive, Brookfield, 53045, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile

Carat from Fiserv is the global operating system for our enterprise clients – it is the set of services, connections and applications businesses need to thrive. Carat helps our clients create unified customer experiences – connected across devices, channels and geograph...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MassMutual

MassMutual

1295 State Street, Springfield, 01111, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.MassMutual.com
631/1000Poor

Living mutual has always been at the core of our human existence, and it's the principle that's guided us since our founding in 1851. It's not a concept we invented, but one we champion for the simple reason that people take it for granted today. While the world would ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:11,736
Subsidiaries:61
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Carat from Fiserv

Carat from Fiserv

-
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
MassMutual

MassMutual

-
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 Carat from Fiserv in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MassMutual in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Carat from Fiserv (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carat from Fiserv cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

MassMutual 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...
Carat from Fiserv

Carat from Fiserv

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MassMutual

MassMutual

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS1026070925
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS654072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS701072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8