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
TMF GroupTMF Group
PING AN

PING AN

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

Last Update: 27/05/2026

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
TMF Group

TMF Group

Luna ArenA, Herikerbergweg 238, , Amsterdam , North Holland, NL, 1101 CM

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tmf-group.com
789/1000Fair

We provide employee, financial and legal administration so that firms can invest and operate safely around the world. TMF Group is a single global team with over 11,000 colleagues in more than 125 offices across 87 jurisdictions, covering 92% of world GDP and 95% of F...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,939
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
TMF Group

TMF Group

-
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)

No incidents recorded for TMF Group in 2026.

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 - TMF Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TMF Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
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.
TMF Group

TMF Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-9044
SUMMARY

An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the VPN module of TP-Link AXE75 V1 routers. This vulnerability allows an adjacent, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the device by importing a specially crafted VPN client configuration file. The issue arises from improper filtering of special characters.  Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may enable an attacker to gain full control of the affected device, potentially compromising configuration integrity, network security, and service availability.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-54909
SUMMARY

pion/stun is a Go implementation of STUN. Prior to 3.1.3, XORMappedAddress.GetFromAs can panic while parsing a malformed short XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN or ICE Binding-response parsing paths, allowing remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54785
SUMMARY

gemini-bridge is a lightweight MCP server bridging AI agents to Google's Gemini AI via the official CLI. From 1.0.0 until 1.3.1, consult_gemini_with_files in inline mode read any file path supplied in the files argument without confining it to the working directory, then forwarded the contents to the Gemini CLI. Because the caller also controls query, the file contents are echoed back through the Gemini round-trip (and sent to Google), making this an arbitrary local file read. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
CVE-2026-54768
SUMMARY

WPGraphQL provides a GraphQL API for WordPress sites. From 2.0.0 until 2.15.1, the deprecated user field on SendPasswordResetEmailPayload lets an unauthenticated caller distinguish existing author-class accounts through the sendPasswordResetEmail mutation and obtain public profile fields. This issue is fixed in version 2.15.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53573
SUMMARY

GeoNetwork is a catalog application to manage spatially referenced resources. From 3.12.0 until 4.2.16 and 4.4.11, unsafe redirect validation in GeonetworkOAuth2LoginAuthenticationFilter and KeycloakAuthenticationProcessingFilter permits an attacker-controlled external redirect after login. This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.16 and 4.4.11.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA