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

Comparison Overview

Lincoln FinancialLincoln Financial
VS
Prudential FinancialPrudential Financial
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

150 N. Radnor-Chester Road, Radnor, PA, US, 19087

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
501/1000Critical

Lincoln Financial (NYSE: LNC) helps people to confidently plan for their version of a successful future. We focus on identifying a clear path to financial security, with products including annuities, investments, life insurance, group protection, and retirement plan ser...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
1
Prudential Financial

Prudential Financial

Broad St, Newark, New Jersey, US, 07102

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.prudential.com
733/1000Moderate

Prudential Financial (NYSE:PRU) was founded on the belief that financial security should be within reach for everyone, and for over 140 years, we have helped our customers reach their potential and tackle life's challenges for now and future generations to come. Today, ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:27,867
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln 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
Prudential Financial

Prudential 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)

Lincoln Financial has 45.36% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prudential Financial in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lincoln Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lincoln Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Prudential Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prudential 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...
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LINLIN1780936450
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN808072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN016091825
Prudential Financial

Prudential Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRU1010070724
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRU621072725
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRU305072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
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
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
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
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3