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

Comparison Overview

Commonwealth Financial GroupCommonwealth Financial Group
VS
PT. PegadaianPT. Pegadaian
Commonwealth Financial Group

Commonwealth Financial Group

280 Congress St, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210, US

Last Update: 22/02/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

At Commonwealth Financial Group (CFG), we are committed to delivering the best-in-class financial planning experience. Our dedicated partnership prioritizes your success and propels you forward with cutting-edge solutions, personalized consulting, and intuitive tools. ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:248
Subsidiaries:61
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PT. Pegadaian

PT. Pegadaian

Jl. Kramat Raya 162, Jakarta Pusat, 10430, ID

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pegadaian.co.id
784/1000Fair

PT Pegadaian didirikan di kota Sukabumi, Jawa Barat pada 1 April 1901. Tak hanya bergerak di Industri Gadai, Pegadaian juga memiliki ragam produk dan layanan seperti investasi berbasis emas yang dapat dimiliki oleh masyarakat dengan cara yang mudah, diantaranya Tabunga...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,062
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Commonwealth Financial Group

Commonwealth Financial Group

-
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
PT. Pegadaian

PT. Pegadaian

-
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 Commonwealth Financial Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT. Pegadaian in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Commonwealth Financial Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Commonwealth Financial Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - PT. Pegadaian (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT. Pegadaian 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...
Commonwealth Financial Group

Commonwealth Financial Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PT. Pegadaian

PT. Pegadaian

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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