Comparison Overview
Sanlam Investments

Sanlam Investments
55 Willie van Schoor Avenue, Cape Town, 7530, ZA
Last Update: 01/03/2026
With just under R1 trillion in assets under management across our retail and institutional businesses, Sanlam Investments is one of South Africa’s largest sustainability-driven asset management companies. We develop high-quality investment solutions that are different...

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited
Chola Crest, C54-55 & Super B-4, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, IN, 600032
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited (Chola), founded in 1978 as part of the Murugappa Group, initially focused on equipment financing. Over the years, Chola has transformed into a leading comprehensive financial services provider, offering a wide array ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Sanlam Investments







Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Sanlam Investments in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited in 2026.
Incident History - Sanlam Investments (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Sanlam Investments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Sanlam Investments

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.