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

Comparison Overview

Goldman Sachs Transaction BankingGoldman Sachs Transaction Banking
VS
EquifaxEquifax
Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking

Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking

New York, US

Last Update: 16/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://gs.com/txb
762/1000Fair

Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking is helping clients build a treasury of the future and powering software partners to enhance their offerings. Our mission is simple: to provide a global transaction banking platform that is nimble, secure, and easy for clients to use and...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Equifax

Equifax

P.O. Box 740241, Atlanta, 30374, US

Last Update: 14/10/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.equifax.com
127/1000Critical

At Equifax (NYSE: EFX), we believe knowledge drives progress. As a global data, analytics, and technology company, we play an essential role in the global economy by helping financial institutions, companies, employers, and government agencies make critical decisions wi...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:18,790
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
11
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking

Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking

-
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
Equifax

Equifax

-
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 Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Equifax has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Equifax (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Equifax 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...
Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking

Goldman Sachs Transaction Banking

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Equifax

Equifax

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAREQU1791938619
🔒 Incident : Breach
THEEQU1782347152
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MEREQUUNIMAEMGMGOOTOYSNOALLORARIPTIC1775528897

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
3.9