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

Comparison Overview

Micro Connect | 滴灌通Micro Connect | 滴灌通
VS
Marsh McLennanMarsh McLennan
Micro Connect | 滴灌通

Micro Connect | 滴灌通

Hong Kong, HK

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.microconnect.com
721/1000Moderate

Micro Connect is an exchange group that leverages financial technology to connect global capital with micro and small businesses. Through its innovative revenue sharing investment and financing model, stores in the Food & Beverage, Retail, Services, and Culture & Sports...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:1,019
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, US, 10036

Last Update: 18/07/2026

View Profile
810/1000Good

Marsh (NYSE: MRSH) is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh Risk, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue over $24 billion and more than 90,000 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:45,730
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Micro Connect | 滴灌通

Micro Connect | 滴灌通

-
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
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

-
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 Micro Connect | 滴灌通 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh McLennan in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Micro Connect | 滴灌通 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Micro Connect | 滴灌通 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Marsh McLennan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marsh McLennan 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...
Micro Connect | 滴灌通

Micro Connect | 滴灌通

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MIC0762207092925
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
MAR18242223
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR307072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1