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

Comparison Overview

Galaxy Asset ManagementGalaxy Asset Management
VS
OTP GroupOTP Group
Galaxy Asset Management

Galaxy Asset Management

300 Vesey St, New York, 10282, US

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://funds.galaxy.com/
771/1000Fair

Galaxy Asset Management (“GAM”) is a leading global digital assets investment platform, with $5.3B in AUM. GAM offers investors institutional-grade access to the digital assets ecosystem via a diverse suite of over a dozen investment vehicles, spanning passive, active, ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
OTP Group

OTP Group

Nádor u., Budapest, 1051, HU

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

OTP Group is one of the fastest growing, leading independent banking groups in Central and Eastern Europe with a bridgehead in Central Asia. It operates in 11 countries - 10 in CEE region and 1 in Uzbekistan, employing nearly 40,000 people and providing universal finan...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,040
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Galaxy Asset Management

Galaxy Asset Management

-
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
OTP Group

OTP 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 Galaxy Asset Management in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OTP Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Galaxy Asset Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Galaxy Asset Management cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - OTP Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OTP Group 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...
Galaxy Asset Management

Galaxy Asset Management

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
OTP Group

OTP Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8