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
Lloyds Banking GroupLloyds Banking Group
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
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN, GB

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
717/1000Moderate

Our purpose is Helping Britain Prosper. We do this by creating a more sustainable and inclusive future for people and businesses, shaping finance as a force for good. We're part of an ever-changing industry and are currently on a journey to shape the financial services...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:62,601
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

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
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking 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 SEB Latvija in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lloyds Banking Group has 83.49% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Lloyds Banking Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lloyds Banking Group 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.
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LLO1774650460
🔒 Incident : Breach
HALLLO1773312505
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
EURF5LLOCITMIN1774989406

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10777
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in ealpha072 Student-Management-System up to 01451bd7a2f58cdda07bd0b86e3967582e3ecd08. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file admin/config.php of the component Administrative Backend. Such manipulation leads to improper authentication. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-10775
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in sgl-project SGLang up to 0.5.11. Affected by this vulnerability is the function data_hash of the component Cache Handler. This manipulation causes denial of service. The attack is restricted to local execution. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.4
Complexity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-22055
SUMMARY

Active IQ OneCollect version 2.7.3 contains hard-coded credentials that could allow an authenticated attacker with low privileges to perform unauthorized AutoSupport operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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-2026-22054
SUMMARY

Active IQ Config Advisor version 6.7.3 contains hard-coded credentials that could allow an authenticated attacker with low privileges to perform unauthorized AutoSupport operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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-2026-10771
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in crmeb crmeb_java 1.4. Affected is the function RestTemplate.getForEntity of the file crmeb-common/src/main/java/com/zbkj/common/utils/RestTemplateUtil.java of the component base64 Qrcode Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9