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

Comparison Overview

Dragonfly Asset ManagementDragonfly Asset Management
VS
Old Mutual South AfricaOld Mutual South Africa
Dragonfly Asset Management

Dragonfly Asset Management

London, GB

Last Update: 14/04/2026

View Profile
684/1000Weak

Dragonfly Asset Management identifies the leading digital assets. Our experienced multi-disciplinary team blends decades of traditional investment experience with tech-native blockchain expertise to identify compelling infrastructure investment opportunities in the digi...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:7
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Old Mutual South Africa

Old Mutual South Africa

107 Rivonia Road, Sandton, 2196, ZA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.oldmutual.co.za
790/1000Fair

Old Mutual Limited is a premium pan-African financial services group that offers a broad spectrum of financial solutions to retail and corporate customers across key markets in 14 countries. We have been helping our customers achieve their lifetime financial goals for o...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:17,879
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Dragonfly Asset Management

Dragonfly Asset Management

-
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
Old Mutual South Africa

Old Mutual South Africa

-
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)

Dragonfly Asset Management has 44.44% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual South Africa in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Dragonfly Asset Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dragonfly Asset Management cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Old Mutual South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual South Africa 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...
Dragonfly Asset Management

Dragonfly Asset Management

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DRA1776205993
Old Mutual South Africa

Old Mutual South Africa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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