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

Comparison Overview

PT. PegadaianPT. Pegadaian
VS
M&T BankM&T Bank
PT. Pegadaian

PT. Pegadaian

Jl. Kramat Raya 162, Jakarta Pusat, 10430, ID

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pegadaian.co.id
784/1000Fair

PT Pegadaian didirikan di kota Sukabumi, Jawa Barat pada 1 April 1901. Tak hanya bergerak di Industri Gadai, Pegadaian juga memiliki ragam produk dan layanan seperti investasi berbasis emas yang dapat dimiliki oleh masyarakat dengan cara yang mudah, diantaranya Tabunga...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:12,062
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

345 Main St., Buffalo, 14203, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.mtb.com
679/1000Weak

Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footpr...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:30,274
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PT. Pegadaian

PT. Pegadaian

-
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
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

-
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 PT. Pegadaian in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

M&T Bank has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PT. Pegadaian (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT. Pegadaian cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M&T Bank 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...
PT. Pegadaian

PT. Pegadaian

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TTHI1776869694
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TLAW1776869766

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85893
SUMMARY

Use after free in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-69486
SUMMARY

Heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2025-11395
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Podman. If an attacker can pass a crafted tar archive to the `podman load` command, they can create files on the host machine with the privileges of the user running Podman.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-92259
SUMMARY

Integer overflow or wraparound vulnerability in Samsung Opensource Escargot allows attackers with write access to the bytecode-cache directory to cause a heap-based buffer overflow and denial of service via a crafted cache file. This issue affects Escargot: ac94df78493ee6fede286620d94f724e46b4d238.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-92257
SUMMARY

Netcore NR255-V version 1.5.130703 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in L7 content management pages that use eval() sinks, affecting the call board text and policy group handling components. Attackers can inject persistent script payloads through these pages to have malicious code executed in the context of other users viewing the affected content.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3