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

Comparison Overview

CME Group FoundationCME Group Foundation
VS
Save the Children InternationalSave the Children International
CME Group Foundation

CME Group Foundation

N/A

Last Update: 02/02/2026

View Profile
759/1000Fair

CME Group Foundation strives to empower future generations through education, equipping today’s students to meet tomorrow’s challenges. They will shape the future of the world’s most important industries – including our own – so we give them the tools they need to achie...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:2
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Save the Children International

Save the Children International

1 St. Johns Lane , London, England, GB, EC1M 4BL 

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

Save the Children Save the Children is the world's leading independent organisation for children. We work in around 120 countries. Our vision is to live in a world in which every child attains the right to survival, protection, development and participation. Last...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:17,354
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CME Group Foundation

CME Group Foundation

-
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
Save the Children International

Save the Children International

-
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 Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CME Group Foundation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Save the Children International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CME Group Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CME Group Foundation 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 - Save the Children International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Save the Children International 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...
CME Group Foundation

CME Group Foundation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Save the Children International

Save the Children International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SAV115717923

FAQ

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