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

Comparison Overview

LBP AMLBP AM
VS
Goldman SachsGoldman Sachs
LBP AM

LBP AM

36, Quai Henri IV, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75004

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lbpam.com
756/1000Fair

We are a leading European multi-specialist in conviction-based asset management, solutions and sustainable finance. LBP AM is a leading asset manager in France and in Europe in the management of listed assets (investment in listed companies for over 30 years) and Europ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:280
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs

200 West Street, New York, 10282, US

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.goldmansachs.com
757/1000Fair

We aspire to be the world’s most exceptional financial institution, united by our shared values of partnership, client service, integrity, and excellence. Operating at the center of capital markets, we act as one firm, mobilizing our people, capital, and ideas to deli...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:67,001
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LBP AM

LBP AM

-
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
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs

-
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 LBP AM in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Goldman Sachs has 197.03% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LBP AM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LBP AM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Goldman Sachs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Goldman Sachs 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...
LBP AM

LBP AM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
JONGENMCDGOL1775507547
🔒 Incident : Breach
ERN1785357267
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOLTIS1791391141

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8