Comparison Overview

Transamerica

VS

Lloyds Banking Group

Transamerica

undefined, Baltimore, Maryland, 21202, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 700 and 749

Longer lifespans are changing the way we exist. Instead of the traditional stages of learn, work, and retire, we now have the potential for a more fulfilling, multi-stage life. With this opportunity comes the need to plan for it. We enable financial professionals, brokers, agents, advisors, and employers to energize clients and employees to seize the possibilities longevity brings. So, no matter where someone is on their journey, we can help them pursue the freedom to live the life they want. Transamerica. Live your best life. Securities distributed by Transamerica Capital, Inc. Social terms: https://www.transamerica.com/social-media-guidelines

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 15,361
Subsidiaries: 23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Lloyds Banking Group

25 Gresham Street, London, UK, GB, EC2V 7HN
Last Update: 2025-11-20

Our purpose is Helping Britain Prosper. We do this by creating a more sustainable and inclusive future for people and businesses, shaping finance as a force for good. We're part of an ever-changing industry and are currently on a journey to shape the financial services of the future, whilst supporting our customers’ changing needs. The scale and reach of our Group means we can offer a broad range of opportunities to learn, grow and develop. Our values-led culture and approach to inclusion and diversity means we can all make a real difference together.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 61,434
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/transamerica.jpeg
Transamerica
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lloyds-banking-group.jpeg
Lloyds Banking Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Transamerica
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lloyds Banking Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Transamerica in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lloyds Banking Group in 2025.

Incident History — Transamerica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transamerica cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lloyds Banking Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lloyds Banking Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/transamerica.jpeg
Transamerica
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lloyds-banking-group.jpeg
Lloyds Banking Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2006
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Lloyds Banking Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Transamerica company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Transamerica company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Lloyds Banking Group company.

In the current year, Lloyds Banking Group company and Transamerica company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lloyds Banking Group company nor Transamerica company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Lloyds Banking Group company and Transamerica company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Lloyds Banking Group company nor Transamerica company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Transamerica company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Lloyds Banking Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Transamerica company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Lloyds Banking Group company.

Lloyds Banking Group company employs more people globally than Transamerica company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Transamerica nor Lloyds Banking Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H