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

Comparison Overview

Oracle Financial ServicesOracle Financial Services
VS
HCLTechHCLTech
Oracle Financial Services

Oracle Financial Services

2300 Oracle Way, Austin, 78741, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://oracle.com/fs
749/1000Moderate

Oracle Financial Services provides financial services industry with comprehensive platforms built on modern, open and intelligent technology, for digital and core transformation for banks and insurers, and a modern suite of Analytical Applications for Risk and Finance Co...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:12
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
HCLTech

HCLTech

Noida, Uttar Pradesh, IN, 201301

Last Update: 29/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.hcltech.com
802/1000Good

HCLTech is a global technology company, home to more than 223,000 people across 60 countries, delivering industry-leading capabilities centered around AI, digital, engineering, cloud and software, powered by a broad portfolio of technology services and products. We work...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:259,290
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Oracle Financial Services

Oracle Financial Services

-
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
HCLTech

HCLTech

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Oracle Financial Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

HCLTech has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Oracle Financial Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oracle Financial Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

HCLTech 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...
Oracle Financial Services

Oracle Financial Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
HCLTech

HCLTech

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HCLTAT1786448292
🔒 Incident : Breach
IHGHCLGAPWYNMCDVODKYNMIC1786975327

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-102335
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 fails to restrict the advanced_config field to administrators, allowing non-admin users with manage permissions to inject arbitrary nginx directives. Attackers can inject malicious nginx configuration such as alias directives to serve arbitrary files or control routing for their assigned hosts.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102334
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 lacks rate-limiting on authentication endpoints, allowing unauthenticated attackers to make unlimited password guesses against any account. Attackers can brute-force login credentials via POST /api/tokens and subsequently guess TOTP codes via POST /api/tokens/2fa to gain full session access and administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
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: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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-2026-102333
SUMMARY

httpdbg before 2.2.1 fails to validate URL schemes in recorded HTTP request URLs rendered as clickable links in the web interface. Attackers controlling traffic recorded by httpdbg can supply javascript: scheme URLs that execute malicious scripts in the application origin when clicked, allowing access to captured request and response data including headers and tokens.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102332
SUMMARY

Dozzle versions before 11.1.2 fail to sanitize container display names when building ZIP archive entry names in the log download endpoint. Attackers who can label containers can use path traversal sequences to write files outside the extraction directory when users download and extract logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-101262
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Ziroom ZHOME A0101 1.0.1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /api/ZRQos/set_online_client. The manipulation of the argument ip leads to command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
2.3