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

Comparison Overview

UK Export FinanceUK Export Finance
VS
LPL FinancialLPL Financial
UK Export Finance

UK Export Finance

1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1H 9, GB

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile
759/1000Fair

UK Export Finance is the UK’s export credit agency and a government department, working alongside the Department for Business and Trade as an integral part of its strategy and operations. Our mission is to advance prosperity by ensuring no viable UK export fails for l...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:589
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, 92121-1968, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.lpl.com/
645/1000Poor

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,10...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:14,964
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UK Export Finance

UK Export Finance

-
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
LPL Financial

LPL 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UK Export Finance in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

LPL Financial has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - UK Export Finance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UK Export Finance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LPL Financial 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...
UK Export Finance

UK Export Finance

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LPL Financial

LPL Financial

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASHLPL1768395244
🔒 Incident : Breach
LPLMAR1780432565
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8