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

Comparison Overview

KeylendKeylend
VS
Principal Financial GroupPrincipal Financial Group
Keylend

Keylend

81 The Parade, Norwood, 5067, AU

Last Update: 16/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.keylend.com.au
734/1000Moderate

Keylend established its origins in 1998 by founder and CEO Chris Burns. At Keylend we offer a wealth of knowledge and experience in finance for matters relating to residential, commercial, vehicle, and equipment finance as well as refinancing, personal loans and gener...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:53
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial Group

711 High St., Des Moines, Iowa, US, 50309

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.principal.com
706/1000Moderate

Principal Financial Group® is dedicated to improving the wealth and well-being of people and businesses around the world—helping more than 62M customers plan, protect, invest, and retire as of December 31, 2023. Along the way, we commit to supporting the communities whe...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:23,891
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Keylend

Keylend

-
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
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial 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)

Keylend has 45.36% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Principal Financial Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Keylend cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Principal Financial Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Principal Financial 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...
Keylend

Keylend

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
KEY1781583821
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI131072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI956091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI1009091725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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: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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9