Comparison Overview
New York Life Insurance Company

New York Life Insurance Company
51 Madison Avenue, New York, 10010, US
Last Update: 05/09/2026
For over 180 years, we’ve helped turn your biggest dreams into milestones that last a lifetime. As a mutual company we hold ourselves to the highest standards of transparency, objectivity, and integrity. We’re committed to improving local communities through a culture o...

Revolut
30 S Colonnade, London, E14 5HX, GB
Last Update: 28/09/2026
People deserve more from their money. More visibility, more control, and more freedom. Since 2015, Revolut has been on a mission to deliver just that. Our powerhouse of products help our 70+ million customers get more from their money every day. As we continue our ligh...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

New York Life Insurance Company







Revolut






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for New York Life Insurance Company in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
Revolut has 1076.47% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - New York Life Insurance Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)
New York Life Insurance Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Revolut (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Revolut cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

New York Life Insurance Company

Revolut
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.
Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.