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

Comparison Overview

New York Life InvestmentsNew York Life Investments
VS
Marsh McLennanMarsh McLennan
New York Life Investments

New York Life Investments

51 Madison Avenue, New York, 10010, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

New York Life Investments is comprised of the global asset management businesses of our parent company, New York Life Insurance Company. We offer clients access to specialized investment teams through our family of affiliated boutiques. Disclosure and guidelines: https...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:972
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, US, 10036

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
808/1000Good

Marsh (NYSE: MRSH) is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh Risk, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue over $24 billion and more than 90,000 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:45,730
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
New York Life Investments

New York Life Investments

-
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
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

-
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 New York Life Investments in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh McLennan in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - New York Life Investments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New York Life Investments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Marsh McLennan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marsh McLennan 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...
New York Life Investments

New York Life Investments

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NYL1040072725
Marsh McLennan

Marsh McLennan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
MAR18242223
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAR307072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8