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

Comparison Overview

LPL FinancialLPL Financial
VS
Absa GroupAbsa Group
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, 92121-1968, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.lpl.com/
645/1000Poor

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,10...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,964
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2
Absa Group

Absa Group

7th Floor, Absa Towers West, Johannesburg, 2001, ZA

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
716/1000Moderate

Absa Group Limited (Absa) has forged a new way of getting things done, driven by bravery and passion, with the readiness to realise growth on the African continent and beyond. We’re a truly African brand, inspired by the people we serve in Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Maur...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:43,046
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LPL Financial

LPL 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
Absa Group

Absa 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)

LPL Financial has 43.18% 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 Absa Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

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

Absa 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...
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASHLPL1768395244
🔒 Incident : Breach
LPLMAR1780432565
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318
Absa Group

Absa Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CITSTAABS1782779964

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2