Comparison Overview

Robinhood

VS

Aboitiz Group

Robinhood

Menlo Park, California, US, 94025
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Trade. Invest. Earn.  rbnhd.co/social_media_disclosures

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 4,307
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Aboitiz Group

NAC Tower, 32nd Street,, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, PH
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Here at Aboitiz, we aim to change today to shape the future. With five generations of success behind us, the Aboitiz Group is currently transforming into the Philippines’ first techglomerate. Amidst this evolution, we remain committed to our core mission of driving change for a better world by advancing businesses and communities.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 11,396
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/robinhood.jpeg
Robinhood
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/aboitiz.jpeg
Aboitiz Group
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
Robinhood
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Aboitiz Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

Robinhood has 28.21% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aboitiz Group in 2025.

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

Robinhood cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Aboitiz Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aboitiz Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/robinhood.jpeg
Robinhood
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing (Fake Job Offers), Social Engineering (ClickFix), Malicious Command-Line Execution, Fake Skill Assessment Websites
Motivation: Financial Gain (Cryptocurrency Theft), Sanctions Evasion, Intelligence Gathering, Revenue Generation for Regime
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aboitiz.jpeg
Aboitiz Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Robinhood company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Aboitiz Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Robinhood company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Aboitiz Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Robinhood company has reported more cyber incidents than Aboitiz Group company.

Neither Aboitiz Group company nor Robinhood company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Robinhood company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Aboitiz Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Robinhood company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Aboitiz Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Robinhood company nor Aboitiz Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Robinhood company nor Aboitiz Group company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Aboitiz Group company employs more people globally than Robinhood company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Robinhood nor Aboitiz Group 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