Comparison Overview

LPL Financial

VS

Tata Capital

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

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 1,100 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.9 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,111
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Tata Capital

Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Tata Capital Limited is a subsidiary of Tata Sons Limited. The Company is registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a Core Investment Company and offers through itself and its subsidiaries fund and fee-based financial services to its customers, under the Tata Capital brand. As a trusted and customer-centric, one-stop financial services provider, Tata Capital caters to the diverse needs of retail, corporate and institutional customers, across various areas of business namely the Commercial Finance, Infrastructure Finance, Cleantech Finance, Wealth Management, Consumer Loans and distribution and marketing of Tata Cards. Tata Capital has over 500+ branches spanning all critical markets in India.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 12,733
Subsidiaries: 73
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tata-capital.jpeg
Tata Capital
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
LPL Financial
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Tata Capital
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LPL Financial in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Capital in 2025.

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

LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Tata Capital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Capital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Email Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft of Employee's Desktop Computer
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tata-capital.jpeg
Tata Capital
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Financial Gain, Disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing Emails, Spoofed Supplier Communications, WhatsApp Scams, Human Error (Misplaced Trust)
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Reputational Damage, Exploitation of Human Behavior
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Tata Capital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LPL Financial company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Tata Capital company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to LPL Financial company.

In the current year, Tata Capital company has reported more cyber incidents than LPL Financial company.

Tata Capital company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while LPL Financial company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Tata Capital company and LPL Financial company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Tata Capital company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while LPL Financial company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither LPL Financial company nor Tata Capital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Tata Capital company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LPL Financial company.

LPL Financial company employs more people globally than Tata Capital company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor Tata Capital holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H