Comparison Overview
LPL Financial

LPL Financial
4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, 92121-1968, US
Last Update: 13/09/2026
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...

PT. Pegadaian
Jl. Kramat Raya 162, Jakarta Pusat, 10430, ID
Last Update: 13/09/2026
PT Pegadaian didirikan di kota Sukabumi, Jawa Barat pada 1 April 1901. Tak hanya bergerak di Industri Gadai, Pegadaian juga memiliki ragam produk dan layanan seperti investasi berbasis emas yang dapat dimiliki oleh masyarakat dengan cara yang mudah, diantaranya Tabunga...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

LPL Financial







PT. Pegadaian






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
LPL Financial has 42.86% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for PT. Pegadaian in 2026.
Incident History - LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)
LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - PT. Pegadaian (X = Date, Y = Severity)
PT. Pegadaian cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

LPL Financial

PT. Pegadaian
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.