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

Comparison Overview

HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.
VS
RevolutRevolut
HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.

HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.

6727 Variel Ave Unit A, Los Angeles, 91303, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://haszcompanies.com
726/1000Moderate

Hasz Fund Control, Inc has been helping banks and private money construction lenders mitigate risk and monitor new and existing construction loans for over 35 years. We work with Construction Lending Departments within banks, SBA Lenders, and Private Money Lenders to ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:7
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Revolut

Revolut

30 S Colonnade, London, E14 5HX, GB

Last Update: 29/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.revolut.com
637/1000Poor

People deserve more from their money. More visibility, more control, and more freedom. Since 2015, Revolut has been on a mission to deliver just that. Our powerhouse of products help our 70+ million customers get more from their money every day. As we continue our ligh...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:19,786
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.

HASZ FUND CONTROL, 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
Revolut

Revolut

-
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 HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Revolut has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Revolut 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...
HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.

HASZ FUND CONTROL, INC.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HAS229072925
Revolut

Revolut

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
REV1785327822
🔒 Incident : Breach
REV1785335106
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
N26REV1776860884

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8