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

Comparison Overview

ING RomaniaING Romania
VS
Abu Dhabi Commercial BankAbu Dhabi Commercial Bank
ING Romania

ING Romania

Strada Aviator Popisteanu 54a, Sector 1, Bucharest, undefined, RO

Last Update: 30/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ing.ro
780/1000Fair

ING is a global financial institution with a strong European base. Our customers are at the heart of what we do, and our purpose is to empower people to stay a step ahead in life and in business. At ING we encourage you to `do your thing`, to do more of what you love. ...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:1,831
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Building, Abu Dhabi, 939, AE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.adcb.com
801/1000Good

Established in 1985, ADCB places its focus on the UAE where it helps to make a significant contribution to the economy and community it serves. Our aspiration to be the number one bank of choice in the UAE is fueled by the strength and effectiveness of our strategy. Gui...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:12,041
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ING Romania

ING Romania

-
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
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ING Romania in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ING Romania (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ING Romania 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 - Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank 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...
ING Romania

ING Romania

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8