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

Comparison Overview

Principal Financial GroupPrincipal Financial Group
VS
Guaranty TrustGuaranty Trust
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial Group

711 High St., Des Moines, Iowa, US, 50309

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.principal.com
714/1000Moderate

Principal Financial Group® is dedicated to improving the wealth and well-being of people and businesses around the world—helping more than 62M customers plan, protect, invest, and retire as of December 31, 2023. Along the way, we commit to supporting the communities whe...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:23,891
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1
Guaranty Trust

Guaranty Trust

Plot 635, Akin Adesola, Victoria Island, Lagos State, Nigeria, Lagos, NG

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.gtbank.com
693/1000Weak

We are Guaranty Trust. Founded in 1990, we own and operate one of Africa's best managed banking franchises, serving over 24 million customers across 10 African countries and the United Kingdom. We are Proudly African and Truly International. We believe in getting it r...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,213
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial 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
Guaranty Trust

Guaranty Trust

-
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 Principal Financial Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - Principal Financial Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Principal Financial Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Guaranty Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guaranty Trust 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...
Principal Financial Group

Principal Financial Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI131072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI956091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI1009091725
Guaranty Trust

Guaranty Trust

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GTCZEN1785882465

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
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:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1