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

Comparison Overview

Guidehouse LithuaniaGuidehouse Lithuania
VS
PING ANPING AN
Guidehouse Lithuania

Guidehouse Lithuania

N/A

Last Update: 23/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://guidehouse.com/regions/lithuania
754/1000Fair

Guidehouse is a global AI-led professional services firm delivering advisory, technology, and managed services to the commercial and government sectors. With an integrated business technology approach, Guidehouse drives efficiency and resilience in the healthcare, finan...

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

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518046, CN

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://group.pingan.com/
830/1000Good

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services an...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:51,286
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Guidehouse Lithuania

Guidehouse Lithuania

-
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
PING AN

PING AN

-
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 Guidehouse Lithuania in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PING AN in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Guidehouse Lithuania (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guidehouse Lithuania 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 - PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN 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...
Guidehouse Lithuania

Guidehouse Lithuania

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PING AN

PING AN

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93892
SUMMARY

IBM TRIRIGA Application Platform 5.0.0 through 5.0.8 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to exposure of session tokens in the HTML response.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-93891
SUMMARY

IBM TRIRIGA Application Platform 5.0.0 through 5.0.8 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to an XML external entity (XXE) injection flaw.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-92832
SUMMARY

IBM Aspera Enterprise WebApps 1.0.0 through 1.0.6 could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information due to cleartext transmission of sensitive information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-85457
SUMMARY

IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a stack-based buffer overflow.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
REFERENCES
CVE-2026-84418
SUMMARY

IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 can allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to present a forged TLS certificate, intercept the connection, and capture the IAM bearer Authorization header automatically attached by the session adapter. The captured token grants full platform-scope tenant API access, enabling the attacker to read and manipulate the victim's DataStage projects, flows, assets, and pipeline definitions. This is client-side SDK code running on the user's own machine, so exploitation requires an external network interceptor rather than a co-tenant in the shared cluster.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-12
UPDATED
Date2026-10-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
REFERENCES