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

Comparison Overview

Loren D. Stark CompanyLoren D. Stark Company
VS
Franklin TempletonFranklin Templeton
Loren D. Stark Company

Loren D. Stark Company

10750 Rockley Rd, Houston, 77099, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://ldsco.com
722/1000Moderate

The Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO), as a Retirement Plan Consulting and Administration firm, has developed a close relationship with the business community in Houston and across Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. From the beginning our objective has been to provide our clie...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:93
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton

1 Franklin Pkwy, San Mateo, 94403, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
786/1000Fair

Franklin Resources, Inc. [NYSE:BEN] is a global investment management organization with subsidiaries operating as Franklin Templeton (www.franklinresources.com). The products, services, information and materials referenced in this site may not be available to resident...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,033
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Loren D. Stark Company

Loren D. Stark Company

-
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
Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton

-
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 Loren D. Stark Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Franklin Templeton in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Loren D. Stark Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Loren D. Stark Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Franklin Templeton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Franklin Templeton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Loren D. Stark Company

Loren D. Stark Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOR447072625
Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1