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

Comparison Overview

Pictet GroupPictet Group
VS
Banco DaviviendaBanco Davivienda
Pictet Group

Pictet Group

Route des Acacias 60, Geneva, 1211, CH

Last Update: 08/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.pictet.com
773/1000Fair

Pictet is an investment-led service company, offering wealth management, asset management and related services. We are an independent investment partnership known for our long-term mindset, responsible approach to business and entrepreneurial spirit. These principles ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:5,086
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Banco Davivienda

Banco Davivienda

Avenida Calle 26 68C-61, Bogota, 110931, CO

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.davivienda.com
790/1000Fair

En Davivienda creemos en un mundo financiero sin barreras que facilite la vida a las personas, las empresas, las ciudades y municipios. Por esta razón hoy somos más de 19.000 personas innovando y creando cada día soluciones y ofertas exclusivas para 10 millones de clien...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:13,665
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pictet Group

Pictet 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
Banco Davivienda

Banco Davivienda

-
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 Pictet Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco Davivienda in 2026.

Incidents

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

Pictet Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Banco Davivienda 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...
Pictet Group

Pictet Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHA300062125
Banco Davivienda

Banco Davivienda

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2