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

Comparison Overview

CUSO Financial ServicesCUSO Financial Services
VS
J.P. MorganJ.P. Morgan
CUSO Financial Services

CUSO Financial Services

San Diego, 92131, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.lpl.com/
695/1000Weak

CUSO Financial Services (CFS) has officially ceased operations following the 2024 acquisition of Atria Wealth Solutions by LPL Financial. As of August 1, 2025, the Atria brand and all affiliated subsidiaries—including CFS—have been fully absorbed into LPL, and both the ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:154
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan

270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10017

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.jpmorgan.com
812/1000Good

J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:82,484
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CUSO Financial Services

CUSO Financial Services

-
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
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan

-
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 CUSO Financial Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

J.P. Morgan has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - CUSO Financial Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CUSO Financial Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - J.P. Morgan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.P. Morgan 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...
CUSO Financial Services

CUSO Financial Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CUS120072425
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CUS609072825
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CUS529072825
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NYLJPMOUTOUT1773678705
🔒 Incident : Breach
JPM004091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
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-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
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