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

Comparison Overview

DragonEx NetworkDragonEx Network
VS
Fidelity National FinancialFidelity National Financial
DragonEx Network

DragonEx Network

1550 New Petchburi Road, Makkasan, Ratthawi, Bangkok, 10440, TH

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://dragonex.io/
739/1000Moderate

Launched on 2 November 2017 in Singapore, DragonEx is a cryptocurrency exchange with an accumulative transaction volume of $25.5 billion. DragonEx is the pioneer of the transaction mining model, and 100% of trading commission income is promised to share with DT holders....

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:3
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Fidelity National Financial

Fidelity National Financial

601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, 32204, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.fnf.com
734/1000Moderate

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (NYSE: FNF) is a leading provider of title insurance and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. Ranked #359 on the FORTUNE 500(r) list for 2023, FNF is the nation's largest title insurance company through our t...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:19,570
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DragonEx Network

DragonEx Network

-
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
Fidelity National Financial

Fidelity National 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 DragonEx Network in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fidelity National Financial in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DragonEx Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DragonEx Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Fidelity National Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fidelity National 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...
DragonEx Network

DragonEx Network

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DRA20255123
Fidelity National Financial

Fidelity National Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FID823311223
🔒 Incident : Breach
FID959091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
FID027091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2