Comparison Overview
Oracle Financial Services

Oracle Financial Services
2300 Oracle Way, Austin, 78741, US
Last Update: 28/03/2026
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...

T-Systems International
Hahnstraße 43d, Frankfurt am Main, 60528, DE
Last Update: 05/04/2026
Your digitalization partner with industry expertise With locations in more than 26 countries and over 26,000 employees (2024), T-Systems is one of the leading providers of digital services in Europe. The Deutsche Telekom subsidiary is headquartered in Germany and has a...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Oracle Financial Services







T-Systems International






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 vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for T-Systems International in 2026.
Incident History - Oracle Financial Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Oracle Financial Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - T-Systems International (X = Date, Y = Severity)
T-Systems International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Oracle Financial Services

T-Systems International
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.