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

Comparison Overview

China UnionPayChina UnionPay
VS
Tata CapitalTata Capital
China UnionPay

China UnionPay

CN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://cn.unionpay.com
802/1000Good

中国银联是中国银行卡联合组织,通过银联跨行交易清算系统,实现商业银行系统间的互联互通和资源共享,保证银行卡跨行、跨地区和跨境的使用。中国银联已与境内外数百家机构展开广泛合作,银联网络遍布中国城乡,并已延伸至亚洲、欧洲、美洲、大洋洲、非洲等境外150多个国家和地区。 中国银联大力推进各类基于银行卡的综合支付服务。持卡人不仅可以在ATM自动取款机、商户POS刷卡终端等使用银行卡,还可以通过互联网、手机、固定电话、自助终端、智能电视终端等各类新兴渠道实现公用事业缴费、机票和酒店预订、信用卡还款、自助转账 等多种支付。围绕着满...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:1,934
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Tata Capital

Tata Capital

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai, 400013, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.tatacapital.com
802/1000Good

Tata Capital Limited is a subsidiary of Tata Sons Limited. The Company is registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a Core Investment Company and offers through itself and its subsidiaries fund and fee-based financial services to its customers, under the Tata Capital...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:24,293
Subsidiaries:68
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
China UnionPay

China UnionPay

-
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
Tata Capital

Tata Capital

-
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 China UnionPay in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Capital in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - China UnionPay (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China UnionPay cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tata Capital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Capital 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...
China UnionPay

China UnionPay

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHI1768664464
Tata Capital

Tata Capital

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19917
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in code-projects Online Food Order System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file delete_food_items1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument checkbox can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-74767
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its handling of DAA (Direct Access Archive) files. When extracting the internal ISO image from a DAA archive, compressed chunks were decompressed using zlib.decompress() without enforcing a limit on the resulting uncompressed data. An attacker able to submit a crafted DAA file containing highly compressed data could cause Pandora to decompress a relatively small input into a very large amount of data in memory. Because the decompressed chunks are accumulated to construct the internal ISO image, this could result in excessive memory consumption and potentially CPU exhaustion, causing the extraction worker to become unresponsive, terminate, or affect the availability of the Pandora service. The patch introduces bounded decompression using decompressobj().decompress() with max_extracted_filesize, verifies the cumulative size of decompressed chunks, and raises a dedicated ZipBomb exception when the configured limit is exceeded. Pandora then aborts extraction and reports the file as too large.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-74764
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a path traversal vulnerability in its TAR archive extraction functionality. When processing a submitted TAR archive, the extractor passed archive member names directly to Python's tarfile.TarFile.extract() without applying an extraction filter. An attacker able to submit a specially crafted TAR archive containing malicious member paths, such as paths using ../ sequences or absolute paths, could cause extracted files to be written outside the intended extraction directory. This may allow the attacker to overwrite files accessible to the Pandora worker process and could potentially result in application compromise, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service depending on the files targeted and the privileges of the Pandora process. The vulnerability is corrected by using Python's filter='data' extraction filter, which rejects or sanitizes dangerous TAR members, including paths that escape the destination directory and unsafe link targets. The weakness corresponds to MITRE's general path traversal category, which includes archive extraction cases where attacker-controlled filenames cause files to be written outside the intended directory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-73055
SUMMARY

Shescape before 2.1.15 (and 3.0.0 before 3.0.2) fails to properly escape tilde (~) characters in assignment contexts on Unix systems where the shell is explicitly configured to "sh" or true and /bin/sh points to BusyBox. Using the escape and escapeAll APIs with untrusted input in an assignment prefixed to a command, an attacker can inject a tilde payload to disclose the user's home directory location and, depending on usage, alter the location on which a command operates.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-73054
SUMMARY

SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the WebSocket endpoint caused by differential parsing of query parameters between authentication exemption and session quarantine checks. Unauthenticated attackers can craft a malicious WebSocket URI with duplicated query parameters to bypass access auth code validation and receive the live kernel event stream including document identifiers, titles, and operation logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9