Comparison Overview
Regal Securities, Inc.

Regal Securities, Inc.
950 Milwaukee Ave, Glenview, 60025, US
Last Update: 04/04/2026
In the race to sameness, the financial services industry is attempting to fit advisors and their clients into an increasingly limited set of solutions. Conversely, Regal does not subscribe to a one size fits all approach as each advisor’s business, and their client’s f...

Principal Financial Group
711 High St., Des Moines, Iowa, US, 50309
Last Update: 14/09/2026
Principal Financial Group® is dedicated to improving the wealth and well-being of people and businesses around the world—helping more than 62M customers plan, protect, invest, and retire as of December 31, 2023. Along the way, we commit to supporting the communities whe...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Regal Securities, Inc.







Principal Financial Group






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Regal Securities, Inc. in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Principal Financial Group in 2026.
Incident History - Regal Securities, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Regal Securities, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Principal Financial Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Principal Financial Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Regal Securities, Inc.

Principal Financial Group
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.