Comparison Overview

ANZ

VS

LCL

ANZ

833 Collins Street, Docklands, Melbourne, 3008, AU
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.anz.com

ANZ has a proud heritage of more than 180 years. Our purpose is to shape a world where people and communities thrive. That is why we strive to create a balanced, sustainable economy in which everyone can take part and build a better life. We employ more than 50,000 people and have our global headquarters in Melbourne. ANZ is among the top 4 banks in Australia, the largest banking group in New Zealand and Pacific, and among the top 50 banks in the world. Follow us elsewhere for our latest news: facebook.com/ANZAustralia facebook.com/ANZNewZealand twitter.com/ANZ_AU twitter.com/ANZ_NZ twitter.com/ANZ_Media twitter.com/ANZ_BlueNotes twitter.com/ANZ_Research instagram.com/anz_au bluenotes.anz.com

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 51,422
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

LCL

20, Avenue de Paris, VILLEJUIF, Île-de-France, FR, 94800
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lcl.fr/

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/anz.jpeg
ANZ
—
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
ANZ
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 ANZ in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LCL in 2025.

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

ANZ 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/anz.jpeg
ANZ
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

ANZ 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 ANZ company.

In the current year, LCL company and ANZ company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LCL company nor ANZ company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither LCL company nor ANZ company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither LCL company nor ANZ company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither ANZ company nor LCL company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ANZ nor LCL holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LCL company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to ANZ company.

ANZ company employs more people globally than LCL company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither ANZ nor LCL holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ANZ nor LCL holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ANZ nor LCL holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ANZ nor LCL holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ANZ nor LCL holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ANZ nor LCL 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.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References
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).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
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
References