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

Comparison Overview

MUFGMUFG
VS
LSEGLSEG
MUFG

MUFG

2-7-1, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, 100-8330, JP

Last Update: 04/07/2026

View Profile
835/1000Good

MUFG (Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group) is one of the world's leading financial groups. Headquartered in Tokyo and with over 360 years of history, MUFG has a global network with over 2,100 locations in more than 40 markets including the Americas, Europe, the Middle East a...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:22,578
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LSEG

LSEG

10 Paternoster Square, London, England, GB, EC4M 7DX

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.lseg.com
697/1000Weak

LSEG (London Stock Exchange Group) is a diversified international markets infrastructure business —earning our clients’ trust for over 300 years. That legacy of customer-focused excellence ensures that you can rely on our expertise in capital formation, intellectual pro...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:24,270
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MUFG

MUFG

-
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
LSEG

LSEG

-
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 MUFG in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LSEG in 2026.

Incidents

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

MUFG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LSEG 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...
MUFG

MUFG

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LSEG

LSEG

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BRU0093500092025
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COL5132151100225

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2