Comparison Overview
PGIM India Mutual Fund

PGIM India Mutual Fund
N/A
Last Update: 22/01/2026
PGIM India Mutual Fund is a wholly owned business of PGIM, the global investment management business of the US based Prudential Financial, Inc. (PFI). PGIM India Asset Management is the full service investment manager of PGIM India Mutual Fund, offering a broad range...

Dubai Holding
Umm Suqeim Road, across from Madinat Jumeirah, Dubai, 66000 , AE
Last Update: 08/09/2026
Dubai Holding is a diversified global investment company that continues to power Dubai’s growth across 10 key sectors, including real estate, hospitality, leisure & entertainment, media, ICT, design, education, retail, manufacturing & logistics and science. Since 2004...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

PGIM India Mutual Fund







Dubai Holding






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for PGIM India Mutual Fund in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Dubai Holding in 2026.
Incident History - PGIM India Mutual Fund (X = Date, Y = Severity)
PGIM India Mutual Fund cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Dubai Holding (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Dubai Holding cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

PGIM India Mutual Fund

Dubai Holding
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.
Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.