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

Comparison Overview

Kreissparkasse Traunstein-TrostbergKreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg
VS
Goldman SachsGoldman Sachs
Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

N/A

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.spk-ts.de
755/1000Fair

Unsere Sparkasse wurde im Jahre 1863 gegründet und ist das größte selbstständige Kredit­institut im Land­kreis. Unser Geschäfts­gebiet ist, mit Ausnahme der Gemeinde Schnaitsee, der gesamte Landkreis Traunstein mit rund 170.000 Einwohnern und einer Fläche von 1.534 qkm....

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:86
Subsidiaries:63
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs

200 West Street, New York, 10282, US

Last Update: 06/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.goldmansachs.com
785/1000Fair

We aspire to be the world’s most exceptional financial institution, united by our shared values of partnership, client service, integrity, and excellence. Operating at the center of capital markets, we act as one firm, mobilizing our people, capital, and ideas to deli...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:67,203
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

-
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
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs

-
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 Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Goldman Sachs has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg 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 - Goldman Sachs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Goldman Sachs 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...
Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Kreissparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
JONGENMCDGOL1775507547
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOL1766613328

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8