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

Comparison Overview

RAMSRAMS
VS
The Max GroupThe Max Group
RAMS

RAMS

Level 12, 321 Kent St, Sydney, 2000, AU

Last Update: 09/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rams.com.au
757/1000Fair

RAMS will no longer be accepting new home loan applications. However, we remain committed to supporting current customers and their home loan with us. Current RAMS home loan customers can still manage their loan or deposit products via the myRAMS app, rams.com.au, or b...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:531
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The Max Group

The Max Group

Max House 1,, New Delhi, 110020, IN

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.maxindia.com
776/1000Fair

Max Group is a $7 billion diversified Indian conglomerate founded by Mr. Analjit Singh with a strong presence across Senior Care, Life Insurance, and Real Estate. Guided by a purpose-driven approach, we aim to create meaningful solutions that improve lives and deliver l...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:31,162
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
RAMS

RAMS

-
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
The Max Group

The Max 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 RAMS in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Max Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

RAMS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

The Max Group 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...
RAMS

RAMS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The Max Group

The Max Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8