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

Comparison Overview

J.P. Morgan Workplace SolutionsJ.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions
VS
Lloyds Banking GroupLloyds Banking Group
J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions

J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions

N/A

Last Update: 01/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

J.P. Morgan recognizes that your company's success is fuelled by the exceptional commitment and dedication of its employees. Workplace Solutions offer a comprehensive suite of technology and services designed to empower your team to confidently manage their workplace ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:274
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN, GB

Last Update: 02/08/2026

View Profile
701/1000Moderate

Our purpose is Helping Britain Prosper. We do this by creating a more sustainable and inclusive future for people and businesses, shaping finance as a force for good. We're part of an ever-changing industry and are currently on a journey to shape the financial services...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:57,842
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions

J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions

-
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
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

-
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 J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lloyds Banking Group has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions 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 - Lloyds Banking Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lloyds Banking Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions

J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LLO1774650460
🔒 Incident : Breach
HALLLO1773312505
🔒 Incident : Breach
UK-POSLLO1785651930

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2