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

Comparison Overview

Magic FinServMagic FinServ
VS
Banco DaviviendaBanco Davivienda
Magic FinServ

Magic FinServ

240 W 34th St 36th Floor, New York City, 10119, US

Last Update: 14/01/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Magic FinServ is a leading digital technology services company for the Financial services industry. We bring a rare combination of Capital Markets domain knowledge & new-age technology skills in Blockchain & Artificial Intelligence. We offer end to end services to be yo...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:53
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Banco Davivienda

Banco Davivienda

Avenida Calle 26 68C-61, Bogota, 110931, CO

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.davivienda.com
790/1000Fair

En Davivienda creemos en un mundo financiero sin barreras que facilite la vida a las personas, las empresas, las ciudades y municipios. Por esta razón hoy somos más de 19.000 personas innovando y creando cada día soluciones y ofertas exclusivas para 10 millones de clien...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:13,665
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Magic FinServ

Magic FinServ

-
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
Banco Davivienda

Banco Davivienda

-
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 Magic FinServ in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco Davivienda in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Magic FinServ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Magic FinServ cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Banco Davivienda (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banco Davivienda 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...
Magic FinServ

Magic FinServ

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Banco Davivienda

Banco Davivienda

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8