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

Comparison Overview

SEB LatvijaSEB Latvija
VS
American ExpressAmerican Express
SEB Latvija

SEB Latvija

Meistaru iela 1, Valdlauci, Kekavas pagasts, Kekavas novads, LV 1010, LV

Last Update: 23/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.seb.lv/
757/1000Fair

Nākotne nebūs tāda, kādu mēs to iztēlojamies – tā būs labāka. Jauni piedzīvojumi un labāki lēmumi. Sazinies ar mums, kad nonāc pie dzīves lielajiem lēmumiem: www.seb.lv

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:470
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
American Express

American Express

World Financial Center, 200 Vesey Street, New York, 10285, US

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
710/1000Moderate

At American Express, we know that with the right backing, people and businesses have the power to progress in incredible ways. Whether we’re supporting our customers’ financial confidence to move ahead, taking commerce to new heights, or encouraging people to explore th...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:80,900
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
49
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SEB Latvija

SEB Latvija

-
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
American Express

American Express

-
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 SEB Latvija in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for American Express in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SEB Latvija (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SEB Latvija 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 - American Express (X = Date, Y = Severity)

American Express 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...
SEB Latvija

SEB Latvija

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
American Express

American Express

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AME038090625
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AME345072725
🔒 Incident : Breach
AME234915422

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA