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

Comparison Overview

LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™
VS
LPL FinancialLPL Financial
LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™

LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™

N/A

Last Update: 10/12/2025

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Innovate. Disrupt. Lead. The LOFT explores emerging technologies, new business processes & consumer needs to deliver innovative solutions. Follow our story across social @innovateforward.

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968

Last Update: 02/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.lpl.com/
622/1000Poor

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,318
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™

LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™

-
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
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

-
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 LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™ in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

LPL Financial has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™ 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 - LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial 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...
LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™

LOFT: Lab of Forward Thinking™

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASHLPL1768395244
🔒 Incident : Breach
LPLMAR1780432565
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53646
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when a `ClientPasswordReset` record already exists for a client (from a previous unexpired reset request), subsequent calls to the `reset_password` guest API endpoint reuse the existing token instead of generating a new one. The 15-minute validity window is anchored to the first request's `created_at` timestamp, not the time of the most recent email. An attacker who obtained the original reset link remains able to use it even after the victim requests a new reset, because the original token is never invalidated or rotated. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Configure a reverse proxy (e.g., Nginx, Apache, Cloudflare) to apply per-IP rate limiting to the `/client/reset-password` endpoint to minimize the window of opportunity, and/or manually clear expired `client_password_reset` records from the database after a client reports a suspected compromise.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53645
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow a low-privileged staff account to grant arbitrary module permissions to itself through the admin API, resulting in persistent privilege escalation. A staff user that only has `staff.create_and_edit_staff` can call `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` targeting their own account and write any permission structure, bypassing the intended role-based access control boundary. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Restrict the `staff.create_and_edit_staff` permission to only highly trusted staff members and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` to specific trusted roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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-2026-53644
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions 0.5.3 through 0.7.2 allow authenticated clients to both read and reset API key service secrets for orders that are no longer in an `active` state (e.g., `suspended`, `canceled`). The root cause is missing order-state validation in two client API endpoints, despite an `isActive()` helper already existing in the `Serviceapikey` module and the frontend UI correctly gating access on `order.status == 'active'`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. If the `Serviceapikey` module is not needed, uninstall it to remove the affected endpoints. One may also use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/client/order/service` and `/api/client/serviceapikey/reset` based on application-level order-state logic.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53643
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow low-privileged staff accounts to perform unauthorized actions via admin API endpoints. The root cause is a combination of the `can_always_access` module flag (which grants all staff access to certain modules) and insufficient permission checks or unsafe parameter handling on individual endpoints. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. Restrict staff accounts to only those who need access to sensitive settings and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to the affected endpoints to trusted IP addresses or higher-privilege roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53642
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when the "Require Email Confirmation" setting is enabled, a logged-in client with an unverified email address (`email_approved = 0`) can access all client-area pages (e.g. `/client/balance`, `/client/order/list`, `/client/invoice`) and read real account data, including wallet balances and transaction history. The API-side enforcement correctly restricts unverified clients to only profile-related endpoints, but the page-side enforcement is overly permissive, allowing any request whose path starts with `/client`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. No known workarounds that don't involve modifying the source code are available.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA