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

Comparison Overview

ConcordeConcorde
VS
SanlamSanlam
Concorde

Concorde

3909 Research Park Dr, Ann Arbor, 48108, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://concordeis.com/
703/1000Moderate

Concorde is a nationally recognized, full-service broker-dealer and SEC-Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) and insurance firm committed to supporting financial professionals and their clients. Through a thoughtfully integrated ecosystem of investment, advisory and insu...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:65
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Sanlam

Sanlam

ZA

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sanlam.co.za
784/1000Fair

We’ve finally given a name to that special something a person exudes when they have a plan for their finances. It’s called The F Factor – and now that you know its name, it’s time you feel it too. Let's unlock your financial confidence, together.​ Our team is online we...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:19,623
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concorde

Concorde

-
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
Sanlam

Sanlam

-
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 Concorde in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sanlam in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Concorde (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Concorde cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Sanlam (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sanlam 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...
Concorde

Concorde

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CON538072925
🔒 Incident : Breach
CON558072625
Sanlam

Sanlam

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA