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

Comparison Overview

Generations Federal Credit UnionGenerations Federal Credit Union
VS
Lloyds Banking GroupLloyds Banking Group
Generations Federal Credit Union

Generations Federal Credit Union

1100 NW Loop 410, San Antonio, Texas, US, 78213

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.mygenfcu.org
712/1000Moderate

Established in 1940, Generations Federal Credit Union serves the Bexar County region with an award-winning suite of personal, business and youth banking products and services, including savings, checking, lending and credit cards. At Generations, we strive to redefine t...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:159
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
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
Generations Federal Credit Union

Generations Federal Credit Union

-
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 Generations Federal Credit Union in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lloyds Banking Group has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Generations Federal Credit Union (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Generations Federal Credit Union cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Generations Federal Credit Union

Generations Federal Credit Union

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GEN1768948309
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8