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

Comparison Overview

Suncoast Credit UnionSuncoast Credit Union
VS
Banco de ChileBanco de Chile
Suncoast Credit Union

Suncoast Credit Union

6801 E. Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, 33680, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
659/1000Weak

Suncoast Credit Union is the largest credit union in the state of Florida, the 8th largest in the United States based on membership, and the 10th largest in the United States based on its $18.2 billion in assets. Chartered in 1934 as Hillsborough County Teachers Credit ...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:1,623
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Banco de Chile

Banco de Chile

Ahumada 251, Santiago, Santiago, 8320206, CL

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bancochile.cl
794/1000Fair

Somos una Corporación líder y comprometida con el país que brinda servicios financieros de excelencia a cada segmento de clientes. Buscamos permanentemente ser el mejor Banco para ellos, ser el mejor lugar para trabajar y ser la mejor inversión para nuestros accionistas...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:11,894
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Suncoast Credit Union

Suncoast Credit Union

-
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
Banco de Chile

Banco de Chile

-
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 Suncoast Credit Union in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco de Chile in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Suncoast Credit Union (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Suncoast Credit Union cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Banco de Chile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banco de Chile cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Suncoast Credit Union

Suncoast Credit Union

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SUN1764888584
Banco de Chile

Banco de Chile

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8