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

Comparison Overview

Chatham Capital Group, Inc.Chatham Capital Group, Inc.
VS
S&P GlobalS&P Global
Chatham Capital Group, Inc.

Chatham Capital Group, Inc.

6602 Abercorn Street, Savannah, 31405, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
724/1000Moderate

After three decades of managing portfolios for institutional clients, the founders established Chatham in 1996 to provide professional, unbiased wealth management advice to individuals, families and their related foundations, as well as to manage their own financial aff...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
S&P Global

S&P Global

55 Water Street, New York, 10041, US

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.spglobal.com
788/1000Fair

S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI) enables businesses, governments, and individuals with trusted data, expertise and technology to make decisions with conviction. We are Advancing Essential Intelligence through world-leading benchmarks, data, and insights that customers need in or...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:41,465
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Chatham Capital Group, Inc.

Chatham Capital Group, Inc.

-
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
S&P Global

S&P Global

-
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 Chatham Capital Group, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

S&P Global has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Chatham Capital Group, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - S&P Global (X = Date, Y = Severity)

S&P Global 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...
Chatham Capital Group, Inc.

Chatham Capital Group, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHA439090725
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHAPOSTHERR-1769110042
S&P Global

S&P Global

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LITSPGGUECHE1777407909

FAQ

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