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

Comparison Overview

Santander USSantander US
VS
TMF GroupTMF Group
Santander US

Santander US

75 State St., Boston, MA, US, 02109

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.santanderus.com
716/1000Moderate

Santander in the U.S. is a diversified financial business with ~11,000 employees, 5 million customers and $215 billion in assets. Santander’s purpose is to help people and businesses prosper. In the U.S., Santander does this through Santander Bank, N.A. (SBNA), its reta...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:1,015
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
TMF Group

TMF Group

Luna ArenA, Herikerbergweg 238, , Amsterdam , North Holland, NL, 1101 CM

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tmf-group.com
789/1000Fair

We provide employee, financial and legal administration so that firms can invest and operate safely around the world. TMF Group is a single global team with over 11,000 colleagues in more than 125 offices across 87 jurisdictions, covering 92% of world GDP and 95% of F...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,939
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Santander US

Santander US

-
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
TMF Group

TMF Group

-
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 Santander US in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TMF Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Santander US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Santander US cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TMF Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TMF Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Santander US

Santander US

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAN009091825
🔒 Incident : Breach
ATT1803418111425
TMF Group

TMF Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA