Comparison Overview

Fannie Mae

VS

LPL Financial

Fannie Mae

1100 15th St NW, Washington, District of Columbia, US, 20005
Last Update: 2026-03-28
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fanniemae.com

Fannie Mae creates opportunities for people to buy, refinance, or rent a home. We are a leading source of mortgage financing in all markets and at all times. We ensure the availability of affordable mortgage loans. The financing solutions we develop make homeownership and workforce rental housing a reality for millions of people. The work we do helps maintain the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, which has dominated the housing market since the 1950s. This popular mortgage loan makes committing to purchasing a home easier. It gives homeowners stability and peace of mind by providing predictable mortgage payments over the life of the loan. Fannie Mae provides a reliable source of affordable mortgage credit that supports homebuyers and renters across the country. We continue to innovate and promote a stronger, safer, and more efficient housing finance system to support more opportunities for homebuyers and renters in communities throughout the nation. Join us to help shape the future of housing: http://fanniemae.com/careers. This LinkedIn company page is moderated. Before joining the conversation, please review our Social Media Guidelines: https://www.fanniemae.com/stay-connected.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 12,235
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968
Last Update: 2026-04-01
Between 700 and 749
https://www.lpl.com/

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 1,100 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.9 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,318
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fanniemae.jpeg
Fannie Mae
—
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/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
—
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
Fannie Mae
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LPL Financial
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fannie Mae in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

LPL Financial has 50.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Fannie Mae (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fannie Mae cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fanniemae.jpeg
Fannie Mae
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Online Accounts, Phishing Email, Unauthorized Email Access
Motivation: Financial Gain (Pump-and-Dump Scheme), Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Email Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Fannie Mae company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LPL Financial company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

LPL Financial company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Fannie Mae company has not reported any.

In the current year, LPL Financial company has reported more cyber incidents than Fannie Mae company.

Neither LPL Financial company nor Fannie Mae company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

LPL Financial company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Fannie Mae company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither LPL Financial company nor Fannie Mae company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fannie Mae company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both LPL Financial company and Fannie Mae company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

LPL Financial company employs more people globally than Fannie Mae company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fannie Mae nor LPL Financial holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 1.5.95, FileTools.download_file() in praisonaiagents validates the destination path but performs no validation on the url parameter, passing it directly to httpx.stream() with follow_redirects=True. An attacker who controls the URL can reach any host accessible from the server including cloud metadata services and internal network services. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.95.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, OAuthManager.validate_token() returns True for any token not found in its internal store, which is empty by default. Any HTTP request to the MCP server with an arbitrary Bearer token is treated as authenticated, granting full access to all registered tools and agent capabilities. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.97, the PraisonAI Gateway server accepts WebSocket connections at /ws and serves agent topology at /info with no authentication. Any network client can connect, enumerate registered agents, and send arbitrary messages to agents and their tool sets. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.97.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

PraisonAI is a multi-agent teams system. Prior to version 4.5.90, MCPToolIndex.search_tools() compiles a caller-supplied string directly as a Python regular expression with no validation, sanitization, or timeout. A crafted regex causes catastrophic backtracking in the re engine, blocking the Python thread for hundreds of seconds and causing a complete service outage. This issue has been patched in version 4.5.90.

Published
Date
2026-04-03
Updated
Date
2026-04-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References