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

Comparison Overview

PING ANPING AN
VS
AllyAlly
PING AN

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518046, CN

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://group.pingan.com/
830/1000Good

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services an...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:51,286
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ally

Ally

500 Woodward Ave, Detroit, 48226, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ally.com
729/1000Moderate

Ally Financial Inc. (NYSE: ALLY) is a leading digital financial services company and a top 25 U.S. financial holding company offering financial products for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers and corporate clients. NMLS #3015 | #181005 | https://www.nmlsconsume...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:15,371
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PING AN

PING AN

-
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
Ally

Ally

-
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 PING AN in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Ally has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN 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 - Ally (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ally 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...
PING AN

PING AN

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ally

Ally

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ALL1773383462
🔒 Incident : Breach
ALL944072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
ALL932072825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93291
SUMMARY

Omni C20 lacks proper certificate validation which could allow an attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack which could allow them to execute arbitrary code.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93290
SUMMARY

Omni C20 uses hard-coded credentials that could allow an attacker to monitor log files to obtain credentials to access information like mapping data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-93289
SUMMARY

The affected products are vulnerable to command injection attack that could allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute system commands during the pairing process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-88956
SUMMARY

The Botslab G980H dash camera firmware contains an authentication vulnerability in the root account exposed through the device's UART interface. The affected account does not require a password before granting access to a privileged system interface, and the interface also displays the device's WiFi password during startup. An unauthenticated attacker with physical access to the device could connect to the UART interface, obtain root privileges, and recover the WiFi password.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9
CVE-2026-88761
SUMMARY

The Botslab G980H dash camera firmware generates the default WiFi password using predictable device information, portions of which are advertised by the product. An unauthenticated attacker within WiFi range could potentially determine the remaining password characters through limited guessing and gain unauthorized access to the device network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6