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

Comparison Overview

Florida Risk PartnersFlorida Risk Partners
VS
PortoPorto
Florida Risk Partners

Florida Risk Partners

PO Box 1731, Valrico, 33595-1731, US

Last Update: 13/07/2026

View Profile
563/1000Very Poor

Florida Risk Partners is the next generation. By creating true partnerships with our clients and prospects, we will achieve mutual "true success"​. Florida Risk Partners, LLC is a Trusted Choice® Independent Insurance Agency and risk management firm domiciled in the G...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:10
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Porto

Porto

Avenida Rio Branco, 1489, Sao Paulo, SP, BR, 01205-001

Last Update: 19/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://porto.vc/linkedin
648/1000Poor

A Porto é mais que uma seguradora, é um ecossistema de soluções de serviços de proteção com tecnologia embarcada, para melhorar e facilitar a experiência do cliente. Com mais de 70 anos de mercado, a atuação da companhia se concentra hoje em quatro pilares estratégicos ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:24,464
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Florida Risk Partners

Florida Risk Partners

-
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
Porto

Porto

-
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 Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Florida Risk Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Porto in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Florida Risk Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Florida Risk Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Porto 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...
Florida Risk Partners

Florida Risk Partners

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CALFLO1783967322
Porto

Porto

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POR3692036090725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POR4102041102125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-55867
SUMMARY

Graylog is a free and open log management platform. From 6.2.0 until 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2, the DELETE /users/{userId}/tokens/{idOrToken} endpoint implemented by UsersResource.revokeToken() in graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/users/UsersResource.java checks USERS_TOKENREMOVE permission against the attacker-controlled userId path parameter before resolving the token selected by idOrToken. An authenticated user can provide an authorized userId while accessTokenService.loadById() or accessTokenService.load() resolves a token belonging to another user, including a service account or administrator, after which accessTokenService.destroy() deletes that token without checking AccessToken.getUserName(). The issue does not expose token contents, but unauthorized deletion causes integrity impact and can disrupt access-token-based integrations. This issue is fixed in versions 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55860
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb does not gate clear-text password authentication plugins on transport encryption because the AuthenticationPlugin interface has no capability for a plugin to require a secure connection. A hostile or man-in-the-middle MariaDB server can send an AuthSwitchRequest naming mysql_clear_password or dialog (PAM) over a plain-TCP unencrypted connection, and AuthenticationFlow permits ClearPasswordPluginFlow or PamPluginFlow to return the user's password as cleartext bytes on the wire. The disclosed credentials can subsequently be used to authenticate directly to the database server. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55859
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb encodes and decodes all character data under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. A server can announce a mid-session change to character_set_client through the OK-packet session-state-tracking mechanism, including through SET NAMES executed by a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile or man-in-the-middle server. If the new character set is not UTF-8, the driver continues to exchange UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under a different encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value raises R2dbcNonTransientResourceException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55858
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, the connector encodes and decodes protocol text and performs client-side escaping under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. The server can report a mid-session change to character_set_client through OK-packet session-state tracking, including a change caused by SET NAMES, a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile server. If character_set_client changes to a non-UTF-8 value, the driver continues to read and write UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under another encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value causes SQLException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55857
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, PAM dialog authentication can be coerced into transmitting the account password over an insecure connection. The mysql_clear_password plugin is gated behind a secure transport, but the sibling PAM handler SendPamAuthPacketFactory, named dialog by the server, does not declare that requirement and inherits the default secure-required value false; older branches implement the same affected behavior in SendPamAuthPacket. A hostile or man-in-the-middle server can send an Authentication Switch Request for dialog over plain TCP, causing the driver to return the user's password in cleartext when sslMode=DISABLE and restrictedAuth=null, which is the default configuration. Properly verified TLS and local Unix sockets are not exposed to this transport vector. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2