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

Comparison Overview

Edenred Deutschland GmbHEdenred Deutschland GmbH
VS
Lloyds Banking GroupLloyds Banking Group
Edenred Deutschland GmbH

Edenred Deutschland GmbH

Claudius-Keller-Strasse 3C, München, 81669, DE

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.edenred.de
754/1000Fair

Edenred ist in Deutschland der führende Anbieter von Gutscheinen und Gutscheinkarten für Mitarbeiter, Kunden und Vertriebspartner. Die Lösungen lassen persönliche Anerkennung und gezielte Belohnung wie auch nachhaltige Bindung der jeweiligen Zielgruppe zu. Das vielfä...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:126
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN, GB

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
717/1000Moderate

Our purpose is Helping Britain Prosper. We do this by creating a more sustainable and inclusive future for people and businesses, shaping finance as a force for good. We're part of an ever-changing industry and are currently on a journey to shape the financial services...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:62,601
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Edenred Deutschland GmbH

Edenred Deutschland GmbH

-
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
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

-
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 Edenred Deutschland GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lloyds Banking Group has 90.48% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Edenred Deutschland GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edenred Deutschland GmbH 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 - Lloyds Banking Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lloyds Banking Group 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...
Edenred Deutschland GmbH

Edenred Deutschland GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LLO1774650460
🔒 Incident : Breach
HALLLO1773312505
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
EURF5LLOCITMIN1774989406

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-5270
SUMMARY

An authentication bypass vulnerability exists in certain releases of Ciena Navigator Network Control Suite (NCS), Manage Control Plan (MCP), and Blue Planet products. The issue is caused by improper handling of HTTP request paths and headers, which allows an unauthenticated attacker to manipulate requests in a manner that bypasses authentication and associated audit logging controls.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-14
UPDATED
Date2026-07-14
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-5269
SUMMARY

In Ciena's Navigator Network Control Suite (NCS) and Manage Control Plan (MCP), there are hidden system accounts used for internal software operations. Some of these accounts have default passwords that may be predictable. While these accounts have very limited permissions on their own, an attacker could combine an attack using one of these accounts with other potential weaknesses to launch a more significant attack, possibly leading to escalation of privilege on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-14
UPDATED
Date2026-07-14
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-51808
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in OpenHTJ2K v.0.18.4 and before allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code via the openhtj2k_decoder_impl::invoke, invoke_line_based, invoke_line_based_stream, and invoke_line_based_predecoded function in source/core/interface/decoder.cpp

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-14
UPDATED
Date2026-07-14
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-51807
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in OpenHTJ2K v.0.18.4 and before allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code via the j2k_precinct_subband::parse_packet_header() in source/core/coding/coding_units.cpp

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-14
UPDATED
Date2026-07-14
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-36035
SUMMARY

Incorrect access control in the /api/License/deactivateOffline endpoint of CAXPerts UniversalPlantViewer WebServices Server v2.7.6 allows authenticated attackers with low-level privileges to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via removing the license from the webserver.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-14
UPDATED
Date2026-07-14
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA