Comparison Overview

KPMG US

VS

Old Mutual South Africa

KPMG US

345 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10154
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 800 and 849

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 size and strength make us much more agile and responsive to changing trends.

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

Old Mutual South Africa

107 Rivonia Road, Sandton, 2196, ZA
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Old Mutual Limited is a premium pan-African financial services group that offers a broad spectrum of financial solutions to retail and corporate customers across key markets in 14 countries. We have been helping our customers achieve their lifetime financial goals for over 170 years by investing their funds in ways that create positive futures for them, their families, their communities and broader society. In this way, we significantly contribute to improving the lives of our customers and their communities while ensuring a sustainable future for our business. We employ more than 30 000 people and operate in 14 countries across two regions Africa (South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan and eSwatini) as well as Asia (China) So why work here? We believe you can shape the future with us – a future where we build a better Africa together. That’s why we’re committed to creating opportunities that will give you an edge on the rest. Once you’re part of our team, you will have access to the best breed of advice, tools and frameworks that will equip you to be your exceptional best. #MomentsThatMatter

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 17,846
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kpmg-us.jpeg
KPMG US
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-mutual-south-africa.jpeg
Old Mutual South Africa
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
KPMG US
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Old Mutual South Africa
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KPMG US in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual South Africa in 2026.

Incident History — KPMG US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KPMG US cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Old Mutual South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual South Africa cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kpmg-us.jpeg
KPMG US
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-mutual-south-africa.jpeg
Old Mutual South Africa
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

KPMG US company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Old Mutual South Africa company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Old Mutual South Africa company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to KPMG US company.

In the current year, Old Mutual South Africa company and KPMG US company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa company nor KPMG US company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa company nor KPMG US company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa company nor KPMG US company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither KPMG US company nor Old Mutual South Africa company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

KPMG US company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Old Mutual South Africa company.

KPMG US company employs more people globally than Old Mutual South Africa company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds HIPAA certification.

Neither KPMG US nor Old Mutual South Africa holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N