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
KPMG USKPMG US
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
KPMG US

KPMG US

345 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10154

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.kpmg.com/US
816/1000Good

KPMG is one of the world’s leading professional services firms and the fastest growing Big Four accounting firm in the United States. With 90+ offices and more than 36,000 employees and partners throughout the US, we’re leading the industry in new and exciting ways. Our...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:53,626
Subsidiaries:73
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
KPMG US

KPMG US

-
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)

No incidents recorded for KPMG US in 2026.

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 - KPMG US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KPMG US 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.
KPMG US

KPMG US

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
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-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.1