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

Comparison Overview

Newline™ by Fifth ThirdNewline™ by Fifth Third
VS
KeyBankKeyBank
Newline™ by Fifth Third

Newline™ by Fifth Third

222 S Riverside Plaza, Chicago, 60606, US

Last Update: 26/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://newline53.com/
754/1000Fair

Newline™ by Fifth Third is a modern embedded payments platform built for growth and designed for software companies, fintechs and businesses looking to enhance their existing value proposition by integrating financial services. A modern, composable embedded payments pla...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KeyBank

KeyBank

127 Public Square, Cleveland , Ohio, US, 44114

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.key.com
600/1000Poor

At KeyBank we’ve made a promise to our clients that they will always have a champion in us. To deliver on our promise, we’re committed to building a team of engaged employees who do the right thing for our clients and shareholders, and help them achieve financial wellne...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:22,777
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Newline™ by Fifth Third

Newline™ by Fifth Third

-
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
KeyBank

KeyBank

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Newline™ by Fifth Third in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KeyBank in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Newline™ by Fifth Third (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Newline™ by Fifth Third cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

KeyBank 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...
Newline™ by Fifth Third

Newline™ by Fifth Third

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KeyBank

KeyBank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEY146072725
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEY717082025
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEY2114141122

FAQ

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