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

Comparison Overview

Degroof PetercamDegroof Petercam
VS
IFC - International Finance CorporationIFC - International Finance Corporation
Degroof Petercam

Degroof Petercam

Rue de l'Industrie 44, Brussels, 1040, BE

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
731/1000Moderate

Founded in 1871, Degroof Petercam is a Belgian-rooted reference investment house, built on more than 150 years of integrated financial knowledge. As responsible employer and investor, we contribute to sustainable growth. Private clients and families, entrepreneurs, corp...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:1,538
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
IFC - International Finance Corporation

IFC - International Finance Corporation

2121 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 20433, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.ifc.org/en/about
793/1000Fair

IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries. We utilize and leverage our products and services—as well as products and services of other institutions in the World...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,693
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Degroof Petercam

Degroof Petercam

-
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
IFC - International Finance Corporation

IFC - International Finance Corporation

-
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 Degroof Petercam in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IFC - International Finance Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Degroof Petercam (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Degroof Petercam cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - IFC - International Finance Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IFC - International Finance Corporation 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...
Degroof Petercam

Degroof Petercam

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
DEG038251222
IFC - International Finance Corporation

IFC - International Finance Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1