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

Comparison Overview

Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. SaaleSparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale
VS
UniCreditUniCredit
Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale

Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale

Meininger Straße 31, Bad Neustadt an der Saale, Bavaria, DE, 97616

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Sparkasse Bad Neustadt - Ihr starker Partner vor Ort - auch in Zukunft Zukunft - das ist, was wir als regionale und leistungsstarke Sparkasse verkörpern. Zukunft, die auf langjähriger Erfahrung unserer Mitarbeiter/innen, Wissen und persönlicher Beratung aufbaut.

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UniCredit

UniCredit

Piazza Gae Aulenti, 3, Milano, 20154, IT

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.unicreditgroup.eu
794/1000Fair

UniCredit is a pan-European Bank with a unique service offering in Italy, Germany, Austria, and Central and Eastern Europe. Our Vision is to be the Bank for Europe's Future. Our Purpose is to Empower Communities to Progress, delivering the best-in-class products and s...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:55,727
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale

Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale

-
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
UniCredit

UniCredit

-
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 Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UniCredit in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale 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 - UniCredit (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UniCredit 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...
Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale

Sparkasse Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UniCredit

UniCredit

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
UNI1246291222
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
UNI32523423
🔒 Incident : Breach
UNI182081122

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2