Comparison Overview

Fidelity National Financial

VS

Old Mutual

Fidelity National Financial

601 Riverside Avenue, Building 5, Jacksonville, FL, US, 32204
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (NYSE: FNF) is a leading provider of title insurance and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. Ranked #359 on the FORTUNE 500(r) list for 2023, FNF is the nation's largest title insurance company through our title insurance underwriters (Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title, Commonwealth Land Title, Alamo Title and National Title Insurance of New York) that collectively issue more title insurance policies than any other title company in the United States. Our mission is to advance, expand, and protect the experience of property ownership by making the safety of our customers our primary focus. We pride ourselves on being extremely customer-oriented, motivated, and quick to provide solutions for all of your title insurance needs. We strongly encourage employee ownership of company stock so our FNF family can share in our company’s continuous growth and be a valuable part of something bigger than themselves.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 19,380
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Old Mutual

107 Rivonia Rd, Johannesburg, Gauteng, undefined, ZA
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Old Mutual Limited is a listed company on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and has secondary listings on the London, Malawi, Namibia and Zimbabwe stock exchanges. As a Pan-African financial services company, we are focused on Africa, her needs and her people. Together with you, we have educated our children, given more homes warmth and light, empowered small businesses and improved infrastructure in Africa. Our story will continue #WithAfricaForAfrica.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 12,699
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fidelity-national-financial.jpeg
Fidelity National Financial
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Fidelity National Financial
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Old Mutual
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fidelity National Financial in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual in 2025.

Incident History — Fidelity National Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fidelity National Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Old Mutual (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fidelity-national-financial.jpeg
Fidelity National Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2013
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Old Mutual company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Fidelity National Financial company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Fidelity National Financial company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Old Mutual company has not reported any.

In the current year, Old Mutual company and Fidelity National Financial company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Old Mutual company nor Fidelity National Financial company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Fidelity National Financial company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Old Mutual company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Old Mutual company nor Fidelity National Financial company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fidelity National Financial company nor Old Mutual company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Old Mutual company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Fidelity National Financial company.

Fidelity National Financial company employs more people globally than Old Mutual company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fidelity National Financial nor Old Mutual holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H