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

Comparison Overview

Monetico Split (Paysurf)Monetico Split (Paysurf)
VS
BarclaysBarclays
Monetico Split (Paysurf)

Monetico Split (Paysurf)

4 Rue Frédéric-Guillaume-Raiffeisen , Strasbourg, 67000, FR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Monetico Split est la solution d’encaissement de fonds pour compte de tiers qui s’engage à vos côtés. En tant que solution d’encaissement de Crédit Mutuel et CIC, nous simplifions vos paiements pour vous permettre de vous concentrer pleinement sur le développement de v...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:11
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Barclays

Barclays

1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP, GB

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.home.barclays
816/1000Good

Our vision is to be the UK-centred leader in global finance. We are a diversified bank with comprehensive UK consumer, corporate and wealth and private banking franchises, a leading investment bank and a strong, specialist US consumer bank. Through these five divisions,...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:83,843
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Monetico Split (Paysurf)

Monetico Split (Paysurf)

-
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
Barclays

Barclays

-
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 Monetico Split (Paysurf) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Barclays in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Monetico Split (Paysurf) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Monetico Split (Paysurf) 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 - Barclays (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Barclays 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...
Monetico Split (Paysurf)

Monetico Split (Paysurf)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Barclays

Barclays

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEBARHSBLLONATMAR1774391436

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19961
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. Affected is the function formWlSiteSurvey of the file /goform/formWlSiteSurvey. Performing a manipulation of the argument selSSID results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19960
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This impacts the function formWlbasic of the file /goform/formWlbasic. Such manipulation of the argument rootAPmac leads to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:P/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19959
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This affects the function formWanTcpipSetup of the file /goform/formWanTcpipSetup. This manipulation of the argument pppUserName causes stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19958
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in iatsiuk pptr-mcp up to 0.2.7. The impacted element is the function executeCode of the file src/vm-executor.ts of the component execute Tool. The manipulation results in code injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19957
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in graphlit graphlit-mcp-server 1.0.1. This affects the function fetch of the file src/tools.ts of the component ssrf-test Endpoint. Such manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8