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

Comparison Overview

S&P Global Market IntelligenceS&P Global Market Intelligence
VS
LPL FinancialLPL Financial
S&P Global Market Intelligence

S&P Global Market Intelligence

55 Water Street., New York, New York, 10041, US

Last Update: 05/03/2026

View Profile

At S&P Global Market Intelligence, we understand the importance of accurate, deep, and insightful information. Our team of experts delivers unrivaled insights and leading data and technology solutions, partnering with customers to expand their perspective, operate with ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:258
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968

Last Update: 02/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.lpl.com/
622/1000Poor

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,318
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
S&P Global Market Intelligence

S&P Global Market Intelligence

-
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
LPL Financial

LPL 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)

No incidents recorded for S&P Global Market Intelligence in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

LPL Financial has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - S&P Global Market Intelligence (X = Date, Y = Severity)

S&P Global Market Intelligence cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LPL 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...
S&P Global Market Intelligence

S&P Global Market Intelligence

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASHLPL1768395244
🔒 Incident : Breach
LPLMAR1780432565
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2