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
Standard Bank GroupStandard Bank Group
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
Standard Bank Group

Standard Bank Group

30 Baker St, Rosebank,, Johannesburg , Gauteng, ZA, 2196

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.standardbank.com
803/1000Good

As a brand with a legacy of over 160 years in Africa, we have a deep understanding and belief in the boundless opportunities that this continent presents. Our vision extends beyond mere geography; it encompasses a profound recognition of the potential for growth that re...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:69,355
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Standard Bank Group

Standard Bank 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 Carat from Fiserv in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Standard Bank Group 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 - Standard Bank Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Standard Bank Group 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.
Standard Bank Group

Standard Bank Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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