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

Comparison Overview

Ecobank Guinea EcuatorialEcobank Guinea Ecuatorial
VS
HandelsbankenHandelsbanken
Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial

Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial

268, Malabo, 268, GQ

Last Update: 16/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ecobank.com
753/1000Fair

Una filial de Ecobank, el principal grupo bancario panafricano. Ofrecemos productos, servicios y soluciones bancarias a organizaciones y particulares.

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:74
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Handelsbanken

Handelsbanken

Kungsträdgårdsgatan 2, Stockholm, SE-106 70 , SE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

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

We are Europe's safest commercial bank, with roots in local communities throughout Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK. Across a range of digital and physical meeting places, our branch teams offer ‘up close and personal’ financial advice and solutions, based on...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:13,007
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial

Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial

-
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
Handelsbanken

Handelsbanken

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Handelsbanken in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Handelsbanken (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Handelsbanken 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...
Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial

Ecobank Guinea Ecuatorial

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Handelsbanken

Handelsbanken

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2