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
Shriram Finance LimitedShriram Finance Limited
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
Shriram Finance Limited

Shriram Finance Limited

Wockhardt Towers, Level-3, West Wing, C-2, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, IN, 400051

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
801/1000Good

Shriram Finance is the country’s biggest retail NBFC offering credit solutions for commercial vehicles, two-wheeler loans, car loans, home loans, gold loans, personal and small business loans. We are part of the 50-year-old Shriram Group, a financial conglomerate that h...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:34,477
Subsidiaries:0
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
Shriram Finance Limited

Shriram Finance Limited

-
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 Shriram Finance Limited 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 - Shriram Finance Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shriram Finance Limited 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...
Gesa Credit Union

Gesa Credit Union

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GES1764896431
🔒 Incident : Breach
GES1764878550
Shriram Finance Limited

Shriram Finance Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA