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

Comparison Overview

Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015
VS
MassMutualMassMutual
Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015

Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015

New Delhi, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

At Sibos 2015, Nucleus Software will share global expertise under the theme ‘Profiting from Disruption’ to show how banks can benefit from the on-going change & build their corporate business lines.

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MassMutual

MassMutual

1295 State Street, Springfield, 01111, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.MassMutual.com
631/1000Poor

Living mutual has always been at the core of our human existence, and it's the principle that's guided us since our founding in 1851. It's not a concept we invented, but one we champion for the simple reason that people take it for granted today. While the world would ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:11,736
Subsidiaries:61
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015

Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015

-
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
MassMutual

MassMutual

-
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 Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MassMutual in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

MassMutual 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...
Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015

Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MassMutual

MassMutual

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS1026070925
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS654072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS701072625

FAQ

Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 company and MassMutual company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 and MassMutual, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 and MassMutual, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 or MassMutual ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 or MassMutual ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 and MassMutual, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Nucleus Software @Sibos 2015 and MassMutual, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90647
SUMMARY

ASE/Kalkitech ASE2000 V2 Communication Test Set 2.35 through 2.37 on Windows contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the IEC 60870-5-104 TLS client (Task Mode). This allows a network-positioned attacker to bypass certificate validation via a certificate with multiple simultaneous faults, enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack on protected communications.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-90487
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.4.2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file xxl-job-admin/src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/business/controller/JobGroupController.java. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-90486
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in openstatusHQ openstatus up to f04c827112f30a11d571ebdad3892826034d6265. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file apps/status-page/src/lib/proxy/resolve-custom-domain-rewrite.ts. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The identifier of the patch is 86f370c9c20074c3c3fdec53a359874b8e670fd4. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. This issue got fixed with a silent patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-2026-79300
SUMMARY

SEP sesam before 5.2.0.24 mishandles User Authorization with MFA. If AD authentication is configured and MFA is enforced, an attacker can create a second OTP access capability. SEP sesam and Active Directory handle username capitalization differently, which may allow multiple SEP sesam user accounts to be created for the same Active Directory (AD) account. Active Directory treats usernames as case-insensitive, while SEP sesam distinguishes between different letter casing. As a result, the same AD user can be represented by multiple SEP sesam user accounts that differ only in username capitalization. When Active Directory authentication is configured and multi-factor authentication (MFA) is enforced, this behavior may allow an additional OTP Authenticator to be registered for the same AD account, reducing the effectiveness of MFA protection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90485
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in IOBit Uninstaller 15.5.0.11. Affected by this issue is the function sub_11838 of the file IURegistryFilter.sys of the component IOCTL Dispatch Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack requires local access. The exploit has been published and may be used. Identical IURegistryFilter.sys ships across multiple IObit families. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8