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

Comparison Overview

Fidelity for Wealth ManagersFidelity for Wealth Managers
VS
Piramal FinancePiramal Finance
Fidelity for Wealth Managers

Fidelity for Wealth Managers

245 Summer St, Boston, 02210, US

Last Update: 27/12/2025

View Profile

Stand out in the future of wealth management. Fidelity powers the growth of wealth management firms to help you be more. We offer clearing and custody services, investment and technology products and solutions, brokerage and trading services, and a range of insights, ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Piramal Finance

Piramal Finance

601, 6th Floor, , Amiti Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai, MAHARASHTRA, IN, 400070

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

Piramal Finance Limited (Formerly known as Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited), is engaged in financial services business. It provides both wholesale and retail funding opportunities within real estate and non-real estate sectors. We value your feedback, queri...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,842
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fidelity for Wealth Managers

Fidelity for Wealth Managers

-
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
Piramal Finance

Piramal Finance

-
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 Fidelity for Wealth Managers in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Piramal Finance in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fidelity for Wealth Managers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fidelity for Wealth Managers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Piramal Finance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Piramal Finance 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...
Fidelity for Wealth Managers

Fidelity for Wealth Managers

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Piramal Finance

Piramal Finance

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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