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

Comparison Overview

John HancockJohn Hancock
VS
CIMBCIMB
John Hancock

John Hancock

601 Congress St., Boston, MA, US, 02210

Last Update: 03/11/2025

View Profile
768/1000Fair

At John Hancock, we have a simple mission: helping our customers live longer, healthier, better lives.™For over 160 years, people have trusted us to be honest, reliable, and 100% committed to our customers. Now, we are marrying the best of a longstanding company with le...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:5,087
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CIMB

CIMB

Menara CIMB, Kuala Lumpur Sentral, Kuala Lumpur, 50470, MY

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cimb.com
785/1000Fair

CIMB Group is a leading ASEAN universal bank, one of the largest Asian investment banks and one of the world's largest Islamic banks. We are headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and offer consumer banking, commercial banking, wholesale banking, Islamic banking, and ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:13,906
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
John Hancock

John Hancock

-
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
CIMB

CIMB

-
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 John Hancock in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CIMB in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - John Hancock (X = Date, Y = Severity)

John Hancock 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 - CIMB (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CIMB 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...
John Hancock

John Hancock

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CIMB

CIMB

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9