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

Comparison Overview

Koc Finansman A.S.Koc Finansman A.S.
VS
Franklin TempletonFranklin Templeton
Koc Finansman A.S.

Koc Finansman A.S.

Ünalan Mahallesi Ayazma Cd. Koç Çamlıca İş Merkezi, A Blok no:131 İç Kapı No:4 34700 Üsküdar / İSTANBUL, istanbul, None, TR, 34700

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
757/1000Fair

As Turkey’s first financial services company, Koçfinans offers individual and corporate financing solutions with an innovative, technology-driven approach and a network of over 1,000 contracted sales points. With its broad range of products, flexible payment options, an...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:238
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton

1 Franklin Pkwy, San Mateo, 94403, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
786/1000Fair

Franklin Resources, Inc. [NYSE:BEN] is a global investment management organization with subsidiaries operating as Franklin Templeton (www.franklinresources.com). The products, services, information and materials referenced in this site may not be available to resident...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,033
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Koc Finansman A.S.

Koc Finansman A.S.

-
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
Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton

-
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 Koc Finansman A.S. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Franklin Templeton in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Koc Finansman A.S. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Koc Finansman A.S. 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 - Franklin Templeton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Franklin Templeton 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...
Koc Finansman A.S.

Koc Finansman A.S.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1