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

Comparison Overview

CIC LondonCIC London
VS
First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)
CIC London

CIC London

15 Finsbury Circus, London, EC2M 7EB, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ciclondon.com
752/1000Fair

CIC London is part of the Crédit Mutuel Group, one of Europe’s largest and best-rated banking groups. Formed in 1895, CIC London has over 125 years of presence in the City and has proven to be a reliable and stable business partner during all economic cycles. With consi...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:43
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

Abu Dhabi, 6316, AE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.bankfab.com/
813/1000Good

FAB, the UAE’s largest bank and one of the world’s largest financial institutions offers a an extensive range of tailor-made solutions, and products and services, to provide a customised banking experience. Through its strategic offerings, it looks to meet the banking n...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:17,006
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CIC London

CIC London

-
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
First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CIC London in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CIC London (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CIC London 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 - First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) 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...
CIC London

CIC London

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19961
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. Affected is the function formWlSiteSurvey of the file /goform/formWlSiteSurvey. Performing a manipulation of the argument selSSID results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19960
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This impacts the function formWlbasic of the file /goform/formWlbasic. Such manipulation of the argument rootAPmac leads to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19959
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This affects the function formWanTcpipSetup of the file /goform/formWanTcpipSetup. This manipulation of the argument pppUserName causes stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19958
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in iatsiuk pptr-mcp up to 0.2.7. The impacted element is the function executeCode of the file src/vm-executor.ts of the component execute Tool. The manipulation results in code injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
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-2026-19957
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in graphlit graphlit-mcp-server 1.0.1. This affects the function fetch of the file src/tools.ts of the component ssrf-test Endpoint. Such manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
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