Comparison Overview

Prudential Financial

VS

CreditEase

Prudential Financial

Broad St, Newark, New Jersey, US, 07102
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 650 and 699

Prudential Financial (NYSE:PRU) was founded on the belief that financial security should be within reach for everyone, and for over 140 years, we have helped our customers reach their potential and tackle life's challenges for now and future generations to come. Today, we are one of the world’s largest financial services institutions, offering individual and institutional clients a wide array of financial products and services. With operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America, we are known for delivering on our promises to our customers, and are recognized as a trusted brand and one of the world’s most admired companies. We also have one of the most recognized and trusted brand symbols: The Rock®, an icon of strength, stability, expertise and innovation. We measure our long-term success on our ability to deliver value for shareholders, meet customer needs, and attract and develop the best talent in our industry. We offer an inclusive work environment where employees can develop to their full potential, and give back to the communities where we live and work. (Pru.us/disclaimer)

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 28,356
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

CreditEase

朝阳区建国路88号SOHO现代城16层, 北京, 北京, undefined, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 2006, CreditEase is a Beijing-based world-leading FinTech conglomerate in China. It specializes in inclusive finance and wealth management with a dominant position in credit technology, wealth management technology, insurance technology, etc. Main business sectors of CreditEase include Yiren Digital, CreditEase Wealth Management and CreditEase Insurance. Better tech, better finance, better world.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 16,982
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/prudential-financial.jpeg
Prudential Financial
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/creditease.jpeg
CreditEase
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Prudential Financial
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CreditEase
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prudential Financial in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CreditEase in 2025.

Incident History — Prudential Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prudential Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CreditEase (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CreditEase cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/prudential-financial.jpeg
Prudential Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized third-party access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/creditease.jpeg
CreditEase
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CreditEase company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Prudential Financial company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Prudential Financial company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CreditEase company has not reported any.

In the current year, CreditEase company and Prudential Financial company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CreditEase company nor Prudential Financial company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Prudential Financial company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other CreditEase company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CreditEase company nor Prudential Financial company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Prudential Financial company nor CreditEase company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Prudential Financial company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CreditEase company.

Prudential Financial company employs more people globally than CreditEase company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Prudential Financial nor CreditEase holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H