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

Comparison Overview

WTWWTW
VS
Lloyds Banking GroupLloyds Banking Group
WTW

WTW

51 Lime Street, London, England, GB, EC3M 7DQ

Last Update: 15/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.wtwco.com/
778/1000Fair

At WTW (NASDAQ: WTW), we provide data-driven, insight-led solutions in the areas of people, risk and capital. Leveraging the global view and local expertise of our colleagues serving 140 countries and markets, we help you sharpen your strategy, enhance organizational re...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:57,211
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN, GB

Last Update: 02/08/2026

View Profile
701/1000Moderate

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...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:57,842
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
WTW

WTW

-
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
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking 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)

WTW has 45.65% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Lloyds Banking Group has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - WTW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WTW cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Lloyds Banking 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...
WTW

WTW

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
WTW1784096910
Lloyds Banking Group

Lloyds Banking Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LLO1774650460
🔒 Incident : Breach
HALLLO1773312505
🔒 Incident : Breach
UK-POSLLO1785651930

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82592
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in D-Link DIR-825M 1.1.8. This affects the function sub_46725C of the file /boafrm/formDiskFormat of the component Disk Formatting Handler Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument partition results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-82591
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Open Asset Import Library Assimp up to 6.0.2. The impacted element is the function MD5Importer::MakeDataUnique of the file code/AssetLib/MD5/MD5Loader.cpp. The manipulation of the argument iNewIndex leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The identifier of the patch is bf9dabb617c46e5133dac65cca6bff177917afcb. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-82590
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. The affected element is the function smf_nudm_sdm_handle_get of the file src/smf/nudm-handler.c of the component SMF. Executing a manipulation of the argument preemptCap can lead to reachable assertion. The attack may be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is sufficient to fix this issue. This patch is called 4554405f29bffd7562abedbee63484825bd90cd5. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82589
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. Impacted is the function amf_namf_comm_handle_n1_n2_message_transfer of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component N1-N2 Message Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument N1N2MessageTransferReqData.n2InfoContainer.smInfo.n2InfoContent.ngapIeType results in denial of service. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is recommended to address this issue. The patch is named abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82588
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component Transfer Endpoint. Such manipulation leads to null pointer dereference. The attack can be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is capable of addressing this issue. The name of the patch is abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. Upgrading the affected component is advised.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8