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

Comparison Overview

SberbankSberbank
VS
Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London BranchBank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch
Sberbank

Sberbank

RU

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://sber.ru
822/1000Good

Сбер — крупнейший банк в России, поставщик надёжных технологических решений и один из ведущих финансовых институтов страны. Мы не боимся меняться и открывать новые горизонты, но в то же время остаёмся верными принципам, сформированным за нашу 180-летнюю историю. Такой п...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:11,105
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

CN

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
842/1000Good

Founded in 1908, Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. ("the Bank"​) is one of the oldest banks in China as well as one of the note-issuing banks in modern China. The Bank was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in June 2005 and on the Shanghai Stock Exchange in May 2007...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:12,680
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sberbank

Sberbank

-
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
Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

-
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 Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sberbank in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch in 2026.

Incidents

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

Sberbank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch 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...
Sberbank

Sberbank

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8