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

Comparison Overview

PFC USAPFC USA
VS
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company LimitedCholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited
PFC USA

PFC USA

5754 West 11th Street, Suite 101, Greeley, 80634, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.pfcusa.com
655/1000Weak

Since 1904, PFC USA has provided accounts receivable management solutions for healthcare providers and currently serves over 1,200 healthcare providers, hospitals and healthcare systems nationally. With Omnichannel Preferred Solutions (OPS) offered through PFC USA, pat...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:111
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Chola Crest, C54-55 & Super B-4, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, IN, 600032

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cholamandalam.com
786/1000Fair

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited (Chola), founded in 1978 as part of the Murugappa Group, initially focused on equipment financing. Over the years, Chola has transformed into a leading comprehensive financial services provider, offering a wide array ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:23,504
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PFC USA

PFC USA

-
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
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

-
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 PFC USA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PFC USA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PFC USA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited 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...
PFC USA

PFC USA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PFC16198722
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PRO048072825
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1