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

Comparison Overview

iPay88iPay88
VS
Old Mutual South AfricaOld Mutual South Africa
iPay88

iPay88

C-G-15 Block C, Kuala Lumpur, 52200 , MY

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ipay88.com
725/1000Moderate

iPay88 Holding Sdn Bhd is the leading regional Payment Company in South East Asia. Since 2006, iPay88 has successfully provided e-commerce and retail payment services to more than 38,000 merchants regionally and globally. Headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, iPay88 has a pr...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:157
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Old Mutual South Africa

Old Mutual South Africa

107 Rivonia Road, Sandton, 2196, ZA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.oldmutual.co.za
790/1000Fair

Old Mutual Limited is a premium pan-African financial services group that offers a broad spectrum of financial solutions to retail and corporate customers across key markets in 14 countries. We have been helping our customers achieve their lifetime financial goals for o...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:17,879
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
iPay88

iPay88

-
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
Old Mutual South Africa

Old Mutual South Africa

-
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 iPay88 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual South Africa in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - iPay88 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

iPay88 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Old Mutual South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual South Africa 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...
iPay88

iPay88

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
IPA2049121122
Old Mutual South Africa

Old Mutual South Africa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between iPay88 company and Old Mutual South Africa company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between iPay88 and Old Mutual South Africa, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between iPay88 and Old Mutual South Africa, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - iPay88 or Old Mutual South Africa ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - iPay88 or Old Mutual South Africa ?
Between iPay88 and Old Mutual South Africa, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between iPay88 and Old Mutual South Africa, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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