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

Comparison Overview

KeyBankKeyBank
VS
PT Bank Danamon Indonesia TbkPT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk
KeyBank

KeyBank

127 Public Square, Cleveland , Ohio, US, 44114

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.key.com
600/1000Poor

At KeyBank we’ve made a promise to our clients that they will always have a champion in us. To deliver on our promise, we’re committed to building a team of engaged employees who do the right thing for our clients and shareholders, and help them achieve financial wellne...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:22,777
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1
PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk

PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk

Jl. HR. Rasuna Said Blok C No. 10, Karet Setiabudi, JAKARTA, DKI Jakarta, ID, 12940

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.danamon.co.id
758/1000Fair

PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk (BEI: BDMN) didirikan pada tahun 1956. Per 31 Desember 2024, Danamon mengelola aset konsolidasian sebesar Rp242 triliun dengan anak perusahannya, Adira Finance. Dalam hal kepemilikan saham, 92,47% saham Danamon dimiliki oleh MUFG, dan 7,53%...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:10,623
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
KeyBank

KeyBank

-
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
PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk

PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk

-
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 KeyBank in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk in 2026.

Incidents

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

KeyBank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk 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...
KeyBank

KeyBank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEY146072725
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEY717082025
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEY2114141122
PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk

PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
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: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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:N/UI:P/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