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

Comparison Overview

Stanbic IBTCStanbic IBTC
VS
Lincoln FinancialLincoln Financial
Stanbic IBTC

Stanbic IBTC

Stanbic IBTC Towers, Walter Carrington Crescent, Lagos, undefined, undefined, NG

Last Update: 31/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.stanbicibtc.com
774/1000Fair

We’ve built a legacy of financial excellence. Let’s help you build yours. #GoForIt Please visit www.stanbicibtc.com for more information on all our services. We are on Twitter as @StanbicIBTC and on Facebook www.facebook.com/stanbicibtc. We are easily accessible at over...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:6,548
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

150 N. Radnor-Chester Road, Radnor, PA, US, 19087

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
501/1000Critical

Lincoln Financial (NYSE: LNC) helps people to confidently plan for their version of a successful future. We focus on identifying a clear path to financial security, with products including annuities, investments, life insurance, group protection, and retirement plan ser...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Stanbic IBTC

Stanbic IBTC

-
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
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

-
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 Stanbic IBTC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lincoln Financial has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Stanbic IBTC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanbic IBTC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Lincoln Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lincoln Financial 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...
Stanbic IBTC

Stanbic IBTC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lincoln Financial

Lincoln Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LINLIN1780936450
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN808072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN016091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-45537
SUMMARY

OpenSIPS is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server implementation. In versions prior to 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1, the construct_uri() function concatenates multiple URI components (protocol, username, domain, port, params) into a fixed 1024-byte global BSS buffer without any bounds checking. When a routing script calls construct_uri() with an attacker-controlled username, a combined component length exceeding 1024 bytes overflows the buffer, corrupting adjacent global data with attacker-controlled content. The overflow reaches disable_503_translation, a global flag controlling SIP 503 response handling, allowing an attacker to deterministically set the flag via the URI username and alter the server's routing behavior for subsequent messages. Because the same buffer is shared with contact_builder(), the overflow also corrupts that function's data, and without a memory sanitizer the adjacent globals are silently overwritten on every request containing a long username. This issue has been fixed in versions 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-18819
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-18818
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Ehco1996 django-sspanel up to 2023.12.26. This affects the function TicketDetailView of the file apps/sspanel/views.py of the component Support Ticket Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-70620
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit 87babb5 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows admin-privileged attackers to direct the server to probe internal network resources by supplying arbitrary URLs to the embedding endpoint configuration without scheme, host, IP range, or DNS rebind validation. Attackers can submit loopback addresses, RFC 1918 ranges, or link-local addresses through the embedding endpoint API to partially read responses from cloud instance metadata services, internal APIs, and other hosts reachable from the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-70619
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit bf325f6 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated non-admin users to manage server-wide embedding backend configuration by invoking endpoint management routes that verify session authentication but omit the admin authorization guard. Attackers can supply an attacker-controlled URL to overwrite the embedding backend persisted in the endpoint configuration file and process environment, causing all subsequent embedding operations including chat messages, RAG queries, memory entries, and vault text to be transmitted in plaintext to the attacker-controlled destination, or delete the endpoint configuration to deny embedding service to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8