Comparison Overview

Access Bank Plc

VS

LCL

Access Bank Plc

Corporate Head Office 14/15, Prince Alaba Oniru Road Victoria Island, Lagos State 234-1, NG
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Access Bank Plc is a full service commercial Bank operating through a network of over 600 branches and service outlets located in major centres across Nigeria, Sub Saharan Africa and the United Kingdom. Listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange in 1998, the Bank serves its various markets through 5 business segments: Institutional, Commercial, Retail Banking, Transaction Services and Financial Markets. The Bank has over 800,000 shareholders including several Nigerian and International Institutional Investors and has enjoyed what is arguably Africa’s most successful banking growth trajectory in the last ten years ranking amongst Africa’s top 15 banks by total assets and capital. As part of its continued growth strategy, Access Bank is focused on mainstreaming sustainable business practices into its operations. The Bank strives to deliver sustainable economic growth that is profitable, environmentally responsible and socially relevant.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

LCL

20, Avenue de Paris, VILLEJUIF, Île-de-France, FR, 94800
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Depuis son rapprochement avec le Groupe Crédit Agricole SA en 2003, le périmètre d'activités de LCL, réseau national de banque de détail, est axé sur le marché des particuliers, des professionnels, des entreprises et la Banque privée. LCL est une banque de proximité qui compte 2 065 implantations et 20 900 collaborateurs au service de 6 000 000 de clients particuliers, 320 000 clients professionnels et 27 000 clients entreprises et institutionnels.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 15,988
Subsidiaries: 46
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/access-bank-plc.jpeg
Access Bank Plc
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/lcl.jpeg
LCL
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
Access Bank Plc
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LCL
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Access Bank Plc in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LCL in 2025.

Incident History — Access Bank Plc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Access Bank Plc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

LCL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/access-bank-plc.jpeg
Access Bank Plc
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lcl.jpeg
LCL
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Access Bank Plc company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LCL company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, LCL company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Access Bank Plc company.

In the current year, LCL company and Access Bank Plc company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LCL company nor Access Bank Plc company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither LCL company nor Access Bank Plc company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither LCL company nor Access Bank Plc company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Access Bank Plc company nor LCL company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LCL company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Access Bank Plc company.

LCL company employs more people globally than Access Bank Plc company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Access Bank Plc nor LCL 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