Comparison Overview
Apex Group Ltd

Apex Group Ltd
20 Reid Street, Hamilton, P.O. Box 2460 HMJX, HM12, BM
Last Update: 16/03/2026
We are a single-source financial solutions provider dedicated to driving positive change while supporting the growth and ambitions of asset managers, allocators, financial institutions, and family offices around the world. Established in Bermuda in 2003, we have conti...

J.P. Morgan
270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10017
Last Update: 04/09/2026
J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Apex Group Ltd







J.P. Morgan






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Apex Group Ltd in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
J.P. Morgan has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Apex Group Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Apex Group Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - J.P. Morgan (X = Date, Y = Severity)
J.P. Morgan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Apex Group Ltd

J.P. Morgan
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.