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

Comparison Overview

Scottish Widows Workplace PensionsScottish Widows Workplace Pensions
VS
Santander USSantander US
Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions

Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions

London, City of London, GB

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

At Scottish Widows, we build long term relationships with employers and our relationship-led service teams can help employers and their employees; from setting up schemes to supporting the on-going management of workplace pension schemes. We can provide contract-based ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Santander US

Santander US

75 State Street, Boston, 02109, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.santanderus.com
780/1000Fair

Santander’s purpose is to help people and businesses prosper. In the United States, Santander is a leading financial services provider with approximately 11,000 employees, 4.3 million customers, and assets of $243 billion, as of Q4 2025. Our five diverse and growing bu...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:13,831
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions

Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions

-
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
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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Santander US in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions

Scottish Widows Workplace Pensions

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Santander US

Santander US

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
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: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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9