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 Commercial and Investment BankingJ.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking
VS
EquifaxEquifax
J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking

J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking

New York, New York, US, 0

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
776/1000Fair

J.P. Morgan's Commercial, Corporate and Investment Banking businesses provide a complete set of solutions and capabilities to our clients around the world. We’re committed to supporting our clients through every stage in their life cycle, from emerging startups to large...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Equifax

Equifax

P.O. Box 740241, Atlanta, 30374, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.equifax.com
227/1000Critical

At Equifax (NYSE: EFX), we believe knowledge drives progress. As a global data, analytics, and technology company, we play an essential role in the global economy by helping financial institutions, companies, employers, and government agencies make critical decisions wi...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:18,790
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking

J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking

-
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
Equifax

Equifax

-
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 Commercial and Investment Banking in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Equifax has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Equifax 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 Commercial and Investment Banking

J.P. Morgan Commercial and Investment Banking

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Equifax

Equifax

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
THEEQU1782347152
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MEREQUUNIMAEMGMGOOTOYSNOALLORARIPTIC1775528897
🔒 Incident : Breach
EQU2992029091325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96284
SUMMARY

A malicious user can get read-access to files in the flatpak-system-helper context if a system OCI repository is configured, because the OCI code paths in the system helper follow symlinks when importing OCI images that are under the user's control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-27
UPDATED
Date2026-09-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-100886
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Seetong T8108, T8108P, T8116 and T8232 4.6.1.4-build202604241011. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Debug Service. Such manipulation leads to improper authentication. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-27
UPDATED
Date2026-09-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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: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:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-100885
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Krayin laravel-crm up to 2.2.4. This affects an unknown function of the file packages/Webkul/Installer/src/Http/Middleware/CanInstall.php of the component admin-config-setup API Endpoint. The manipulation results in authorization bypass. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. Upgrading to version 2.2.5 mitigates this issue. The patch is identified as 89f2916b6a46ff91bd1999ce38158fa0de8b9490. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-27
UPDATED
Date2026-09-27
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-2026-100884
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Krayin laravel-crm up to 2.2.5. The impacted element is the function Storage::download of the file packages/Webkul/Admin/src/Config/acl.php of the component attachment-download Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to improper control of resource identifiers. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 2.2.6 is sufficient to resolve this issue. The identifier of the patch is 13d6988cda8d69ece45ee1890effc90a7f21cdc1. It is suggested to upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-27
UPDATED
Date2026-09-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-100883
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Krayin laravel-crm up to 2.2.5. The affected element is an unknown function of the file packages/Webkul/Admin/src/Config/acl.php. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper access controls. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. Upgrading to version 2.2.6 is sufficient to fix this issue. This patch is called a399404a388d8ad2700a01349d0d98069c8e85a4. The affected component should be upgraded.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-27
UPDATED
Date2026-09-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
2.8