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

Comparison Overview

Ecobank Cape VerdeEcobank Cape Verde
VS
UBL - United Bank LimitedUBL - United Bank Limited
Ecobank Cape Verde

Ecobank Cape Verde

Avenida Cidade de Lisboa , Praia, 374-C , CV

Last Update: 28/01/2026

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

Founded in 1985 Ecobank is the leading pan-African Bank with operations in 33 countries across the continent. A Group present in 36 countries with effective banking solutions to manage and simplify your daily finances. Ecobank Cape Verde was founded in 2009 and became a...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:79
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UBL - United Bank Limited

UBL - United Bank Limited

UBL Head Office,, Karachi, 74000, PK

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.ubldigital.com/
789/1000Fair

On 7 November 1959, UBL’s first branch at II Chundrigar Road in Karachi was inaugurated and with it launched a culture of service, innovation and financial excellence in Pakistan. A banking company incorporated in Pakistan and engaged in commercial banking and related s...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:14,878
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ecobank Cape Verde

Ecobank Cape Verde

-
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
UBL - United Bank Limited

UBL - United Bank Limited

-
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 Cape Verde in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UBL - United Bank Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ecobank Cape Verde (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ecobank Cape Verde 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 - UBL - United Bank Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UBL - United Bank Limited 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 Cape Verde

Ecobank Cape Verde

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UBL - United Bank Limited

UBL - United Bank Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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