Comparison Overview
KPMG U.S. Financial Services

KPMG U.S. Financial Services
345 Park Ave, New York, NY , 10154, US
Last Update: 07/03/2026
Disruption can be a threat, or an opportunity. The KPMG Financial Services practice sees today’s challenges as a catalyst for transformation. Our mission is to help our clients grow, connect with customers, manage costs, and comply with ever-changing regulations by lev...

Fidelity Investments
245 Summer St, Boston, 02210, US
Last Update: 12/09/2026
Fidelity’s mission is to strengthen the financial well-being of our customers and deliver better outcomes for the clients and businesses we serve. Fidelity’s strength comes from the scale of our diversified, market-leading financial services businesses that serve indivi...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

KPMG U.S. Financial Services







Fidelity Investments






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for KPMG U.S. Financial Services in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
Fidelity Investments has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - KPMG U.S. Financial Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)
KPMG U.S. Financial Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Fidelity Investments (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fidelity Investments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

KPMG U.S. Financial Services

Fidelity Investments
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.