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

Comparison Overview

PGIMPGIM
VS
LPL FinancialLPL Financial
PGIM

PGIM

Newark, NJ, 07102

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.PGIM.com
771/1000Fair

PGIM, the global asset management business of Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE: PRU) is built on a 150-year legacy of strength, stability, and disciplined risk management through more than 30 market cycles. Managing $1.5 trillion in assets*, PGIM offers clients deep exp...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:4,932
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968

Last Update: 02/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.lpl.com/
622/1000Poor

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,318
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PGIM

PGIM

-
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
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

-
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 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

LPL Financial has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

PGIM 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 - LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial 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

PGIM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASHLPL1768395244
🔒 Incident : Breach
LPLMAR1780432565
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82424
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PHPGurukul Student Information System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /student_edit1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-82423
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /order/paySuccess of the component Payment Status Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument orderId leads to enforcement of behavioral workflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The vendor deleted the GitHub issue for this vulnerability without any explanation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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:N/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82422
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /pages/emp_del.php. The manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-82421
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /pages/emp_edit.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
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-2026-15369
SUMMARY

The Custom User Registration Fields for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to, and including, 2.2.3. This is due to the plugin accepting an attacker-controlled afreg_select_user_role value from the unauthenticated WooCommerce Store API /wc/store/v1/checkout request in the af_reg_checkout_data_to_order_meta_data_block() function, persisting it in order meta, and then passing it directly to WP_User::add_role() in the af_reg_custom_order_processing_function() function (hooked to woocommerce_thankyou) without validating against the plugin's admin-configured allowed role list. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to elevate their privileges to Administrator by creating an account during checkout with a modified JSON body specifying administrator (or any other role slug) as the desired role. Note: The exploit requires the "User Role Selection" setting to be enabled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9