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

Comparison Overview

RemitaRemita
VS
Lincoln FinancialLincoln Financial
Remita

Remita

136, lewis street, Lagos Island, 23401, NG

Last Update: 06/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://remita.net
684/1000Weak

Remita is a foundational player in the Nigerian payments and fintech ecosystem, processing a significant part of the country’s transaction volumes. We help individuals, organizations, and governments to receive and make payments easily. At Remita, we are characterized ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:146
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

150 N. Radnor-Chester Road, Radnor, PA, US, 19087

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
501/1000Critical

Lincoln Financial (NYSE: LNC) helps people to confidently plan for their version of a successful future. We focus on identifying a clear path to financial security, with products including annuities, investments, life insurance, group protection, and retirement plan ser...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Remita

Remita

-
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
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

-
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)

Remita has 43.18% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lincoln Financial has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Remita cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lincoln Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lincoln Financial 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...
Remita

Remita

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STEREM1775473005
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LINLIN1780936450
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN808072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN016091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9