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

Comparison Overview

OTP Bank MagyarországOTP Bank Magyarország
VS
Türkiye İş BankasıTürkiye İş Bankası
OTP Bank Magyarország

OTP Bank Magyarország

HU

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.otpbank.hu
802/1000Good

Az OTP Csoport Magyarország egyik legnagyobb pénzügyi szolgáltató vállalata. A nemzetközi terjeszkedés eredményeként az OTP Csoport ma már meghatározó regionális szereplő a kelet-közép-európai piacon, Magyarországon kívül további 10 országban van jelen. Az OTP Csoport ...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:4,828
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Türkiye İş Bankası

Türkiye İş Bankası

TR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.isbank.com.tr/en
777/1000Fair

In the nearly 100 years since its founding by the Great Leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on August 26, 1924, İşbank has undertaken various roles and made significant contributions to the development of our country in many fields, especially in industry and trade. İşbank of...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:15,347
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OTP Bank Magyarország

OTP Bank Magyarország

-
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
Türkiye İş Bankası

Türkiye İş Bankası

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OTP Bank Magyarország in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Türkiye İş Bankası in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OTP Bank Magyarország (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OTP Bank Magyarország cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Türkiye İş Bankası (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Türkiye İş Bankası cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
OTP Bank Magyarország

OTP Bank Magyarország

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Türkiye İş Bankası

Türkiye İş Bankası

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1