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

Comparison Overview

JetonbankJetonbank
VS
ING NederlandING Nederland
Jetonbank

Jetonbank

1st Floor, 43 Great George Street, Roseau, 00109-8000, DM

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Jetonbank | The Bank for All Businesses Empowering businesses worldwide with secure, digital-first banking. Jetonbank offers tailored financial solutions for modern companies—whether you're managing global payments, holding multi-currency accounts, or issuing virtual c...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:21
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ING Nederland

ING Nederland

Amsterdam Zuidoost, 1102 CT Netherlands, Amsterdam Zuidoost, 1102 CT, NL

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ing.nl
771/1000Fair

ING ING is a global bank with a strong European base. With 14,500 employees in the Netherlands, we’re one of the biggest employers of the country. Our research tells us that we stand out here because of our great working culture, competitive benefits, and interesting wo...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:10,446
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Jetonbank

Jetonbank

-
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
ING Nederland

ING Nederland

-
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 Jetonbank in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ING Nederland in 2026.

Incidents

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

Jetonbank 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 - ING Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ING Nederland 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...
Jetonbank

Jetonbank

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ING Nederland

ING Nederland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

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