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

Comparison Overview

Laser DigitalLaser Digital
VS
Lloyds Banking GroupLloyds Banking Group
Laser Digital

Laser Digital

Kasernenstrasse 1, Zurich, undefined, undefined, CH

Last Update: 05/01/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Laser Digital is a Nomura Group company, delivering scalable, robust opportunities across trading, asset management, and ventures in crypto. The team works at higher standards of risk management, compliance, and commercial viability, all driven by a belief in more respo...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:111
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN, GB

Last Update: 02/08/2026

View Profile
701/1000Moderate

Our purpose is Helping Britain Prosper. We do this by creating a more sustainable and inclusive future for people and businesses, shaping finance as a force for good. We're part of an ever-changing industry and are currently on a journey to shape the financial services...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:57,842
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Laser Digital

Laser Digital

-
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
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking 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)

No incidents recorded for Laser Digital in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lloyds Banking Group has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Laser Digital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Laser Digital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lloyds Banking Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lloyds Banking 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...
Laser Digital

Laser Digital

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LLO1774650460
🔒 Incident : Breach
HALLLO1773312505
🔒 Incident : Breach
UK-POSLLO1785651930

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82424
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PHPGurukul Student Information System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /student_edit1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82423
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /order/paySuccess of the component Payment Status Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument orderId leads to enforcement of behavioral workflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The vendor deleted the GitHub issue for this vulnerability without any explanation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82422
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /pages/emp_del.php. The manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82421
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /pages/emp_edit.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-15369
SUMMARY

The Custom User Registration Fields for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to, and including, 2.2.3. This is due to the plugin accepting an attacker-controlled afreg_select_user_role value from the unauthenticated WooCommerce Store API /wc/store/v1/checkout request in the af_reg_checkout_data_to_order_meta_data_block() function, persisting it in order meta, and then passing it directly to WP_User::add_role() in the af_reg_custom_order_processing_function() function (hooked to woocommerce_thankyou) without validating against the plugin's admin-configured allowed role list. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to elevate their privileges to Administrator by creating an account during checkout with a modified JSON body specifying administrator (or any other role slug) as the desired role. Note: The exploit requires the "User Role Selection" setting to be enabled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9