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

Comparison Overview

Woodbury Financial ServicesWoodbury Financial Services
VS
Absa GroupAbsa Group
Woodbury Financial Services

Woodbury Financial Services

7755 3rd St N, Oakdale, Minnesota, undefined, US

Last Update: 02/12/2025

View Profile

Woodbury Financial Services is an independent broker-dealer, employing 200 home office professionals who serve 1,200 independent representatives. While the name Woodbury has been gaining industry prominence for 11 years, the roots of the company date back to 1910. W...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:261
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Absa Group

Absa Group

7th Floor, Absa Towers West, 15 Troye Street, Johannesburg, Johannesburg, ZA, 2001

Last Update: 30/06/2026

View Profile
714/1000Moderate

Absa Group Limited (Absa) has forged a new way of getting things done, driven by bravery and passion, with the readiness to realise growth on the African continent and beyond. We’re a truly African brand, inspired by the people we serve in Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Maur...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:41,900
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Woodbury Financial Services

Woodbury Financial Services

-
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
Absa Group

Absa 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Woodbury Financial Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Absa Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Woodbury Financial Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Absa Group 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...
Woodbury Financial Services

Woodbury Financial Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Absa Group

Absa Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CITSTAABS1782779964

FAQ

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