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

Comparison Overview

Prosper MarketplaceProsper Marketplace
VS
NomuraNomura
Prosper Marketplace

Prosper Marketplace

221 Main Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.prosper.com/
190/1000Critical

Founded in 2005, Prosper introduced U.S. consumers to an innovative new approach to personal finance called peer-to-peer lending. Almost 20 years later, Prosper has helped over 2 million customers achieve financial well-being through a comprehensive suite of products. ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:473
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2
Nomura

Nomura

1-9-1 Nihonbashi, Tokyo, 103-8645, JP

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nomura.com
785/1000Fair

Nomura is a financial services group with an integrated global network. By connecting markets East & West, Nomura services the needs of individuals, institutions, corporates and governments through its four business divisions: Wealth Management, Investment Management, W...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:16,105
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Prosper Marketplace

Prosper Marketplace

-
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
Nomura

Nomura

-
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 Prosper Marketplace in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nomura in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Prosper Marketplace (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prosper Marketplace cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Nomura (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nomura 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...
Prosper Marketplace

Prosper Marketplace

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRO1765994381
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRO2893528102025
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRO0993009102025
Nomura

Nomura

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
NOM223719123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2