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

Comparison Overview

MSCIMSCI
VS
Guaranty TrustGuaranty Trust
MSCI

MSCI

7 World Trade Center, New York, NY, 10007, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.msci.com
809/1000Good

MSCI is a leading provider of critical decision support tools and services for the global investment community. With over 50 years of expertise in research, data and technology, we power better investment decisions by enabling clients to understand and analyze key drive...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:7,461
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Guaranty Trust

Guaranty Trust

Plot 635, Akin Adesola, Victoria Island, Lagos State, Nigeria, Lagos, NG

Last Update: 04/08/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.gtbank.com
692/1000Weak

We are Guaranty Trust. Founded in 1990, we own and operate one of Africa's best managed banking franchises, serving over 24 million customers across 10 African countries and the United Kingdom. We are Proudly African and Truly International. We believe in getting it r...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,213
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MSCI

MSCI

-
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
Guaranty Trust

Guaranty Trust

-
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 MSCI in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Guaranty Trust has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - MSCI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MSCI 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 - Guaranty Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guaranty Trust 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...
MSCI

MSCI

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Guaranty Trust

Guaranty Trust

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GTCZEN1785882465

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9