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

Comparison Overview

GuardarianGuardarian
VS
IFC - International Finance CorporationIFC - International Finance Corporation
Guardarian

Guardarian

Rotermann, Tallinn , EE

Last Update: 06/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://guardarian.com
730/1000Moderate

Guardarian is a licensed financial company in the field of providing virtual currency services (license nr. FVR000200 issued by the Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit). We help businesses with B2B exchanges & crypto payments solutions.

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:13
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
IFC - International Finance Corporation

IFC - International Finance Corporation

2121 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 20433, US

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.ifc.org/en/about
793/1000Fair

IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries. We utilize and leverage our products and services—as well as products and services of other institutions in the World...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,693
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Guardarian

Guardarian

-
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
IFC - International Finance Corporation

IFC - International Finance Corporation

-
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)

Guardarian has 44.13% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IFC - International Finance Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

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

Guardarian cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - IFC - International Finance Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IFC - International Finance Corporation 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...
Guardarian

Guardarian

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STRGUA1775478818
IFC - International Finance Corporation

IFC - International Finance Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-103761
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a memory exhaustion vulnerability in TransferMetadata::receivePeerNotify that allows unauthenticated attackers to grow process memory without limit. Attackers can repeatedly send notify frames up to 1 MB to the handshake RPC port, filling the uncapped notifys vector until the out-of-memory killer terminates the engine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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
CVE-2026-103760
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to block the handshake daemon by never reading replies. Attackers can send a Metadata request to the handshake RPC port and stall SocketHandShakePlugin's single listener thread in writeFully(), breaking all subsequent handshakes, metadata fetches, notify and probe requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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-2025-71427
SUMMARY

Office-PowerPoint-MCP-Server through 2.0.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows MCP callers to write and read files outside the working directory by supplying absolute paths or ../ sequences. Attackers can steer an AI agent via prompt injection to abuse save_presentation, open_presentation, or manage_image output_path to overwrite any server-writable file or load external files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86344
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a complete LDAP operation followed by the first bytes of an incomplete LDAPMessage on the same connection, causing the server to hand that connection to a second worker thread before the first worker's result is flushed. The second worker blocks until nsslapd-ioblocktimeout while holding the connection mutex, preventing delivery of the completed operation's result. Repeating this across a small number of connections proportional to the configured worker-thread pool size exhausts the entire pool under default configuration, denying service to all clients (anonymous and authenticated, plaintext and TLS) for as long as the attacker maintains the connections.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71454
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') vulnerability in CWE-79 - Cross-site Scripting CAPEC-63 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects CAPEC-63: before 3.0b63.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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