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

Comparison Overview

PGIM Private CapitalPGIM Private Capital
VS
BarclaysBarclays
PGIM Private Capital

PGIM Private Capital

180 N. Stetson Avenue, Chicago, 60601, US

Last Update: 20/04/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

PGIM Private Capital (PPC) is the private debt investment arm of PGIM, the global investment management business of Prudential Financial, Inc. We've been investing in private debt for nearly 100 years and have managed assets on behalf of other institutions since 1976. P...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:170
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Barclays

Barclays

1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP, GB

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.home.barclays
816/1000Good

Barclays is a British universal bank. Our vision is to be the UK-centred leader in global finance. We are a diversified bank with comprehensive UK consumer, corporate and wealth and private banking franchises, a leading investment bank and a strong, specialist US consum...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:80,268
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PGIM Private Capital

PGIM Private Capital

-
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
Barclays

Barclays

-
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 PGIM Private Capital in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Barclays in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PGIM Private Capital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PGIM Private Capital 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 - Barclays (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Barclays 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...
PGIM Private Capital

PGIM Private Capital

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Barclays

Barclays

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEBARHSBLLONATMAR1774391436

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2