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

Comparison Overview

Gesa Credit UnionGesa Credit Union
VS
Mahindra FinanceMahindra Finance
Gesa Credit Union

Gesa Credit Union

51 Gage Blvd, Richland, 99352, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.gesa.com
584/1000Very Poor

Gesa Credit Union stands as one of the largest member-owned credit unions in the Pacific Northwest, proudly serving more than 300,000 members across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho with over $6.4 billion in assets. Headquartered in Richland, WA, Gesa delivers a comprehens...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:761
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Mahindra Finance

Mahindra Finance

Dr. G.M. Bhosale Marg, P.K. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai, 400018, IN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
784/1000Fair

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited (Mahindra Finance), part of the Mahindra Group, is one of India's leading non-banking finance companies. Focused on the rural and semi-urban sector, the Company has over 10 million customers and has an AUM of over USD 11 B...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:11,897
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gesa Credit Union

Gesa 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
Mahindra Finance

Mahindra 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 Gesa Credit Union in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mahindra Finance in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

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

Mahindra Finance 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...
Gesa Credit Union

Gesa Credit Union

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GES1764896431
🔒 Incident : Breach
GES1764878550
Mahindra Finance

Mahindra Finance

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8