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

Comparison Overview

Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPCPrivate Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC
VS
Absa GroupAbsa Group
Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC

Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC

2225 Lexington Road, Louisville, 40206, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.pcsbd.net
681/1000Weak

PCS is a full-service, RIA-friendly Broker Dealer and SEC Registered Investment Advisor. We are growing by dually registering like-minded, hybrid RIA's/IAR's. We are solely focused on servicing the needs of successful, independent advisors and reps allowing you the time...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:80
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Absa Group

Absa Group

7th Floor, Absa Towers West, Johannesburg, 2001, ZA

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
716/1000Moderate

Absa Group Limited (Absa) has forged a new way of getting things done, driven by bravery and passion, with the readiness to realise growth on the African continent and beyond. We’re a truly African brand, inspired by the people we serve in Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Maur...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:43,046
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC

Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC

-
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
Absa Group

Absa 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 Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Absa Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Absa Group 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...
Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC

Private Client Services (PCS), Member FINRA, SIPC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI211418722
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRI804082025
Absa Group

Absa Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CITSTAABS1782779964

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86304
SUMMARY

MojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor. parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAML2 calls Net::SAML2::Binding::POST->new with no cacert, cert_text or anchors argument, then passes the returned XML to Net::SAML2::Protocol::Assertion->new_from_xml with the IdP signing certificate as cacert. In Net::SAML2 before 0.86 that certificate guards only encrypted assertions, so the signature on an unencrypted assertion is checked against the certificate the response itself carries. An attacker starts a SAML login, then posts a response signed with a certificate of their own. The audience, InResponseTo and timestamp checks that follow are all satisfiable by the attacker, so the response authenticates any NameID it carries.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86232
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /pages/sup_del.php?type=supplier. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
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-2026-86231
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in mwiede jsch up to 2.28.5. Affected is the function getRevokedKeys of the file src/main/java/com/jcraft/jsch/KnownHosts.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument known_hosts results in improper check for certificate revocation. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.28.6 is able to address this issue. The patch is named 194a2f76a5c0f1c3f778565be3fd66bcafc42d23. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86228
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.3. This vulnerability affects the function exportXls of the file jeecg-boot/jeecg-boot-module/jeecg-boot-module-airag/src/main/java/org/jeecg/modules/airag/llm/controller/AiragModelController.java. Such manipulation of the argument credential leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.9.5 is able to resolve this issue. The name of the patch is a2be896f753936956ee6863b632b8e5a0231345c. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86227
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in valkey-io valkey up to 9.0.5/9.1.1. This affects the function kvstoreGetHashtable of the file src/kvstore.c. This manipulation of the argument didx causes out-of-bounds read. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 4691888e7fab3df128f0bde5750c9fde2ae552fa. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. Exploitation requires cluster mode plus attacker-controlled dump.rdb at startup (data-dir write access, replication feed, or a stored crafted RDB) - an attacker-position DoS at boot, not network pre-auth. The issue report was closed stating it "is worth fixing for the sake of memory safety… but I don't think it meets our bar for a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6