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

Comparison Overview

PACCAR Financial Corp.PACCAR Financial Corp.
VS
M&T BankM&T Bank
PACCAR Financial Corp.

PACCAR Financial Corp.

777 – 106th Avenue NE, Bellevue, Washington, US, 98004

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

PACCAR Financial Corp. (PFC) was launched in 1961 to facilitate the sale of PACCAR’s premium-quality new and used vehicles in North America. Today we continue to provide a full range of innovative finance products tailored to the unique needs of your business. For ove...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:297
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

345 Main St., Buffalo, 14203, US

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.mtb.com
669/1000Weak

Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footpr...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:30,274
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PACCAR Financial Corp.

PACCAR Financial Corp.

-
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
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

-
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 PACCAR Financial Corp. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

M&T Bank has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PACCAR Financial Corp. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PACCAR Financial Corp. 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 - M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M&T Bank 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...
PACCAR Financial Corp.

PACCAR Financial Corp.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TTHI1776869694
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TLAW1776869766

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-13512
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-13511
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in VoltAgent up to 2.1.17. Affected by this issue is the function handleGetMemoryConversation of the file packages/server-core/src/handlers/memory.handlers.ts of the component Memory REST API. Executing a manipulation of the argument conversationId can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/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
1.6
CVE-2026-13510
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in SimStudioAI sim up to 0.6.92. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality in the library apps/sim/lib/core/security/deployment.ts of the component Password Protection Handler. Performing a manipulation results in use of weak hash. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-13509
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in RAGapp up to 0.1.5. Affected is the function FileHandler.upload_file/FileHandler.remove_file of the file src/ragapp/backend/controllers/files.py of the component Knowledge File Handler. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-13508
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in khoj-ai khoj up to 2.0.0-beta.28. This impacts an unknown function of the file src/khoj/routers/api_chat.py of the component Conversation Sharing Handler. This manipulation of the argument conversation.agent causes incorrect authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1