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

Comparison Overview

IFC InfrastructureIFC Infrastructure
VS
MizuhoMizuho
IFC Infrastructure

IFC Infrastructure

2121 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 20433, US

Last Update: 28/02/2026

View Profile
766/1000Fair

Infrastructure enables economic growth, creates jobs, and improves livelihoods by connecting people to basic services such as digital platforms, affordable energy, efficient transportation, clean water, and sustainable waste management. IFC is at the forefront of privat...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mizuho

Mizuho

1–5–5 Otemachi, Chiyoda–ku, Tokyo, 100–8176, JP

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.mizuhogroup.com/
824/1000Good

This is not your typical financial institution. It’s our people who make us a cut above. Here, every person is respected because of their differences, not in spite of them. We pride ourselves on a culture of purpose, passion and compassion. At Mizuho, we provide the st...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,564
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IFC Infrastructure

IFC Infrastructure

-
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
Mizuho

Mizuho

-
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 IFC Infrastructure in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mizuho in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - IFC Infrastructure (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IFC Infrastructure 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 - Mizuho (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mizuho 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...
IFC Infrastructure

IFC Infrastructure

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mizuho

Mizuho

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1