Comparison Overview
Latitude Financial Services

Latitude Financial Services
130 Lonsdale St, Melbourne, Victoria, AU, 3000
Last Update: 30/03/2026
Everyone has aspirations, and a goal that needs financing. However, sometimes dealing with money can leave you feeling a little overwhelmed. As Australia’s biggest non-bank lender, we want to change that. And we will. Latitude is an independent digital payments and fi...

J.P. Morgan
270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10017
Last Update: 19/06/2026
J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Latitude Financial Services







J.P. Morgan






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Latitude Financial Services in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
J.P. Morgan has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Latitude Financial Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Latitude Financial Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - J.P. Morgan (X = Date, Y = Severity)
J.P. Morgan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Latitude Financial Services

J.P. Morgan
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Improper access control in Microsoft Edge for Android allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature over a network.
A security vulnerability has been detected in NousResearch hermes-agent up to 2026.4.30. Affected is the function GatewayStreamConsumer._filter_and_accumulate of the file gateway/stream_consumer.py of the component Streaming Reasoning Tag Filter. The manipulation leads to improper handling of case sensitivity. The attack may be initiated remotely. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project decided to not implement a dedicated fix: "[T]he analysis and the fix are both sound. It just lands below the bar for the maintenance cost of a duplicated scrub path."
- https://gist.github.com/YLChen-007/2229e5505bcbb3e15a7ae8fba4c4be37
- https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/
- https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/issues/27288
- https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/pull/28631#issuecomment-4622188016
- https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-14617
- https://vuldb.com/submit/844654
- https://vuldb.com/vuln/376134
- https://vuldb.com/vuln/376134/cti
Insufficient ui warning of dangerous operations in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
Relative path traversal in Microsoft Edge for Android allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information locally.