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

Comparison Overview

NEVASANEVASA
VS
M&T BankM&T Bank
NEVASA

NEVASA

Rosario Norte 555 piso 15, Las Condes, Santiago, CL

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nevasa.cl
753/1000Fair

Nevasa es un grupo de empresas que ofrece una amplia gama de productos y servicios financieros a sus clientes. En el año 1989, nace Negocios y Valores S.A. Corredores de Bolsa, con el objeto de satisfacer las crecientes necesidades de un importante grupo de personas, of...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:77
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

345 Main St., Buffalo, 14203, US

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.mtb.com
669/1000Weak

Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footpr...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:30,274
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NEVASA

NEVASA

-
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
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

-
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 NEVASA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

M&T Bank has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

NEVASA 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 - M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M&T Bank 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...
NEVASA

NEVASA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TTHI1776869694
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TLAW1776869766

FAQ

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