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
LPL FinancialLPL Financial
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
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968

Last Update: 02/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.lpl.com/
622/1000Poor

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,318
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

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
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

-
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)

LPL Financial has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial 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...
Degroof Petercam

Degroof Petercam

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
DEG038251222
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASHLPL1768395244
🔒 Incident : Breach
LPLMAR1780432565
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
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:H/I:N/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:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8