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
Sberbank
Sberbank
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
Сбер — крупнейший банк в России, поставщик надёжных технологических решений и один из ведущих финансовых институтов страны. Мы не боимся меняться и открывать новые горизонты, но в то же время остаёмся верными принципам, сформированным за нашу 180-летнюю историю. Такой подход позволяет нам создавать и развивать десятки технологичных направлений. Нашими сервисами пользуются миллионы людей, а над их созданием и совершенствованием работают десятки тысяч сотрудников. Sber is the largest bank in Russia, supplier of reliable technological solutions and one of the leading national financial institutions. We are not afraid to change and open up new horizons, but at the same time we remain true to the principles that have been formed over our 180-year history. This approach allows us to create and develop dozens of technological areas. Our services are used by millions of people, and thousands of employees are working on their creation and improvement.
NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,459
Subsidiaries: 1
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
Sberbank
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
Sberbank
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 Sberbank 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 — Sberbank (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Sberbank 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
Sberbank
Incidents
No Incident
FAQ
Agricultural Bank of China company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Sberbank company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.
Historically, Sberbank company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Agricultural Bank of China company.
In the current year, Sberbank company and Agricultural Bank of China company have not reported any cyber incidents.
Neither Sberbank company nor Agricultural Bank of China company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.
Neither Sberbank company nor Agricultural Bank of China company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.
Neither Sberbank company nor Agricultural Bank of China company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China company nor Sberbank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank holds any compliance certifications.
Neither company holds any compliance certifications.
Sberbank company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Agricultural Bank of China company.
Agricultural Bank of China company employs more people globally than Sberbank company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank holds ISO 27001 certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank holds PCI DSS certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank holds HIPAA certification.
Neither Agricultural Bank of China nor Sberbank 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
