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

Comparison Overview

Phoenix FinancialPhoenix Financial
VS
PING ANPING AN
Phoenix Financial

Phoenix Financial

HaShalom way 55, Givatayim, undefined, undefined, IL

Last Update: 09/02/2026

View Profile
844/1000Good

Phoenix Financial is a dynamic Leader in Israeli insurance, asset management, and financial services. Managing $130 billion in assets, Phoenix continues to access Israel's vibrant and innovative economic activity by providing a robust portfolio of products and services ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:814
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PING AN

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518046, CN

Last Update: 27/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://group.pingan.com/
830/1000Good

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services an...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:51,286
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Phoenix Financial

Phoenix 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
PING AN

PING AN

-
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 Phoenix Financial in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PING AN in 2026.

Incidents

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

Phoenix Financial 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 - PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN 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...
Phoenix Financial

Phoenix Financial

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PING AN

PING AN

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-14776
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function pathinfo of the file /upload_files.php of the component Filename Extension. Performing a manipulation results in unrestricted upload. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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: 2.1
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: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
CVE-2026-14775
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /process_lesson.php. Such manipulation of the argument user_id leads to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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: 2.1
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: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
CVE-2026-14774
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /paymentdischarge.php. This manipulation of the argument patientid causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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: 2.1
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: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
CVE-2026-14773
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /payment.php. The manipulation of the argument patientid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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: 2.1
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: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
CVE-2026-10657
SUMMARY

Zephyr's DNS resolver detects mDNS (.local) queries in dns_resolve_name_internal() (subsys/net/lib/dns/resolve.c) with memcmp(strrchr(query, '.'), ".local", 7), which always reads a fixed 7 bytes from the suffix pointer. When the resolved hostname's final label is shorter than 7 bytes (e.g. names ending in .org, .com, .net, .io, or a trailing dot), the comparison reads 1-2 bytes past the string's NUL terminator. The hostname (query) is the caller-supplied name passed through the standard getaddrinfo()/dns_get_addr_info()/dns_resolve_name() path and is influenceable by operators or remote inputs (server names from configuration, parsed URLs, or app-facing interfaces). On a tightly-sized buffer with no slack (for example a userspace getaddrinfo call where the hostname is copied with k_usermode_string_alloc_copy to exactly strlen+1 bytes), the over-read crosses the allocation boundary; if that boundary is unmapped (guard page, memory-domain boundary under MPU, or an address sanitizer) the over-read faults, causing a denial of service. The over-read bytes are never returned, so there is no information disclosure. The flaw is compiled only when CONFIG_MDNS_RESOLVER is enabled, exists since v1.10.0, and is fixed by replacing the fixed-length memcmp with a NUL-safe strcmp(ptr, ".local").

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2