Agricultural Bank of China
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 800 and 849
wholly state-owned
NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 14,747
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Comparison Overview
Agricultural Bank of China
VS
Capitec
Capitec
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
Imagine simple, affordable banking solutions that work for you – just like it does for over 25 million South Africans. They’re banking smart, paying less and getting more value every day with us. As the country’s leading digital bank, we’re proud to have been voted the Coolest Bank by the youth in the 2024 Sunday Times GenNext Awards. With 880 branches and a team of over 16,900, we’re here to grow with you.
NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 21,561
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Compliance Badges Comparison
Security & Compliance Standards Overview
Agricultural Bank of China
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
Capitec
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Agricultural Bank of China
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Capitec
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Agricultural Bank of China in 2025.
Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Capitec in 2025.
Incident History — Agricultural Bank of China (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Agricultural Bank of China cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Incident History — Capitec (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Capitec cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Notable Incidents
Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company
Agricultural Bank of China
Incidents
No Incident
Capitec
Incidents
No Incident
FAQ
Agricultural Bank of China company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Capitec company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.
Historically, Capitec company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Agricultural Bank of China company.
In the current year, Capitec company and Agricultural Bank of China company have not reported any cyber incidents.
Neither Capitec company nor Agricultural Bank of China company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.
Neither Capitec company nor Agricultural Bank of China company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.
Neither Capitec company nor Agricultural Bank of China company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China company nor Capitec company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds any compliance certifications.
Neither company holds any compliance certifications.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China company nor Capitec company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.
Capitec company employs more people globally than Agricultural Bank of China company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds ISO 27001 certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds PCI DSS certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds HIPAA certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Capitec holds GDPR certification.
Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)
Description
NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description
uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description
A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description
MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description
A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
