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

Comparison Overview

Cifas for Public SectorCifas for Public Sector
VS
The Citco Group LimitedThe Citco Group Limited
Cifas for Public Sector

Cifas for Public Sector

London, WC1H 9LT, GB

Last Update: 23/05/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

We (Cifas), the leaders in fraud prevention, are offering our unparalleled insight into fraud and existing relationships with law enforcement to local authorities in the hope to make create a collaborative working relationship to prevent fraud. This year, we will be ru...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The Citco Group Limited

The Citco Group Limited

89 Nexus Way, 2nd Floor Camana Bay,, Grand Cayman, KY1-1205, KY

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.citco.com
781/1000Fair

Our heritage, since founding a civil law notary practice in the 1940s to establishing the Curacao International Trust Company in the 1960s, is built on challenging paradigms and delivering exceptional service within the financial and professional services industry. Toda...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,859
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cifas for Public Sector

Cifas for Public Sector

-
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
The Citco Group Limited

The Citco Group Limited

-
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 Cifas for Public Sector in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Citco Group Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cifas for Public Sector (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cifas for Public Sector cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - The Citco Group Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Citco Group Limited 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...
Cifas for Public Sector

Cifas for Public Sector

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The Citco Group Limited

The Citco Group Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:N/A:H
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: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