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

Comparison Overview

Mansour GroupMansour Group
VS
Global Payments Inc.Global Payments Inc.
Mansour Group

Mansour Group

Cairo, EG

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

The Mansour Group is a family-owned conglomerate with over 60,000 employees, a presence in more than 100 countries and total revenues exceeding $7.5 billion. Founded in 1952, we manage successful businesses across a number of sectors and have long-term partnerships with...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:1,651
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Global Payments Inc.

Global Payments Inc.

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Last Update: 05/10/2026

View Profile
794/1000Fair

Global Payments (NYSE: GPN) is a leading payment technology and software company that powers commerce for businesses of all sizes worldwide. We help businesses grow with confidence by delivering innovative solutions that enable seamless payment acceptance, smarter opera...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:18,637
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mansour Group

Mansour Group

-
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
Global Payments Inc.

Global Payments Inc.

-
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 Mansour Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Global Payments Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mansour Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mansour Group 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 - Global Payments Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Global Payments Inc. 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...
Mansour Group

Mansour Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Global Payments Inc.

Global Payments Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GLO905072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8