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

Comparison Overview

Gojo & Company, Inc.Gojo & Company, Inc.
VS
Principal Financial GroupPrincipal Financial Group
Gojo & Company, Inc.

Gojo & Company, Inc.

3-14-5 Sendagaya, Shibuya, Tokyo, JP, 1510051

Last Update: 24/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://gojo.co
753/1000Fair

Gojo & Company, Inc. is an enabler of financial inclusion for unserved and underserved communities, investing in and partnering with financial service providers around the world. The company is headquartered in Tokyo and has group companies in 14 countries in South & So...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:69
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial Group

711 High St., Des Moines, Iowa, US, 50309

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.principal.com
706/1000Moderate

Principal Financial Group® is dedicated to improving the wealth and well-being of people and businesses around the world—helping more than 62M customers plan, protect, invest, and retire as of December 31, 2023. Along the way, we commit to supporting the communities whe...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:23,891
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gojo & Company, Inc.

Gojo & Company, Inc.

-
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
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial 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 Gojo & Company, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Principal Financial Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Gojo & Company, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gojo & Company, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Principal Financial 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...
Gojo & Company, Inc.

Gojo & Company, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI131072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI956091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI1009091725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA