Comparison Overview

Ally

VS

L&T Finance

Ally

500 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI, US, 48226
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 700 and 749

Ally Financial Inc. (NYSE: ALLY) is a leading digital financial services company and a top 25 U.S. financial holding company offering financial products for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers and corporate clients. NMLS #3015 | #181005 | https://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org/ Ally's legacy dates back to 1919, and the company was redesigned in 2009 with a distinctive brand, innovative approach and relentless focus on its customers. Ally has an award-winning online bank (Ally Bank, Member FDIC), one of the largest full service auto finance operations in the country, a complementary auto-focused insurance business, and a trusted corporate finance business offering capital for equity sponsors and middle-market companies. We extend equal employment opportunities to qualified applicants and employees on an equal basis regardless of an individual’s age, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, pregnancy status, marital status, military or veteran status, genetic disposition or any other reason protected by law.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 15,070
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

L&T Finance

Plot no. 177, CST Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 098, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

L&T Finance is one of the leading NBFCs offering a range of loans across Rural | Housing | Two-Wheeler | Personal & Business (SME) The company is promoted by Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (L&T), one of the largest conglomerates in India. LTF is publicly listed on both the exchanges of India - BSE & NSE and complies to the guidelines applicable to an NBFC- CIC. Headquartered in Mumbai, the company has been rated AAA, the highest credit rating for NBFCs by four leading rating agencies.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 15,839
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ally.jpeg
Ally
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/l&t-finance.jpeg
L&T Finance
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
Ally
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
L&T Finance
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ally in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for L&T Finance in 2026.

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

Ally cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — L&T Finance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L&T Finance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ally.jpeg
Ally
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Wrongdoing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Programming Code Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party supplier error
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/l&t-finance.jpeg
L&T Finance
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

L&T Finance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ally company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Ally company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas L&T Finance company has not reported any.

In the current year, L&T Finance company and Ally company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither L&T Finance company nor Ally company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Ally company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other L&T Finance company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither L&T Finance company nor Ally company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Ally company nor L&T Finance company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Ally company nor L&T Finance company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

L&T Finance company employs more people globally than Ally company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ally nor L&T Finance holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N