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

Comparison Overview

LSEG Data & AnalyticsLSEG Data & Analytics
VS
Fidelity InvestmentsFidelity Investments
LSEG Data & Analytics

LSEG Data & Analytics

5 Canada Square, London, GB

Last Update: 14/03/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

LSEG Data & Analytics is one of the world’s largest providers of financial markets data and infrastructure. With over 40,000 customers and 400,000 end users across approximately 190 markets, we are an essential partner to the financial community and redefining the futur...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:5,223
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Fidelity Investments

Fidelity Investments

245 Summer St, Boston, MA, US, 02210

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.fidelity.com
585/1000Very Poor

Fidelity’s mission is to strengthen the financial well-being of our customers and deliver better outcomes for the clients and businesses we serve. Fidelity’s strength comes from the scale of our diversified, market-leading financial services businesses that serve indivi...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:84,396
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LSEG Data & Analytics

LSEG Data & Analytics

-
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
Fidelity Investments

Fidelity Investments

-
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 LSEG Data & Analytics in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Fidelity Investments has 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LSEG Data & Analytics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LSEG Data & Analytics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Fidelity Investments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fidelity Investments 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...
LSEG Data & Analytics

LSEG Data & Analytics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Fidelity Investments

Fidelity Investments

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FID1777315250
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CITWELNAVUSAFID1771266975
🔒 Incident : Breach
FID013072825

FAQ

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