Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Banca TransilvaniaBanca Transilvania
VS
BNP ParibasBNP Paribas
Banca Transilvania

Banca Transilvania

Calea Dorobantilor, 30-36, Cluj-Napoca, 400027, RO

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
780/1000Fair

Bun gasit. Noi suntem banca oamenilor intreprinzatori. 💛 Sau mai bine spus, compania care isi doreste ca lucrurile sa fie facute, ideile valorificate, iar visele implinite, sustinand oamenii care au curajul sa faca lucrurile putin mai diferit. Multi cred ca bankingul ...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:7,222
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
BNP Paribas

BNP Paribas

16 boulevard des Italiens, Paris, FR, 75009

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://bnpp.lk/E2gMao
825/1000Good

BNP Paribas is a leading bank in Europe with an international reach. It has a presence in 64 countries, with more than 178,000 employees, including more than 144,000 in Europe. BNP Paribas holds leading positions in its three major operating divisions: ⚆ Commercial, P...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:155,935
Subsidiaries:90
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Banca Transilvania

Banca Transilvania

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
BNP Paribas

BNP Paribas

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banca Transilvania in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNP Paribas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Banca Transilvania (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banca Transilvania cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - BNP Paribas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BNP Paribas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Banca Transilvania

Banca Transilvania

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BNP Paribas

BNP Paribas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Banca Transilvania company and BNP Paribas company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Banca Transilvania and BNP Paribas, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Banca Transilvania and BNP Paribas, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Banca Transilvania or BNP Paribas ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Banca Transilvania or BNP Paribas ?
Between Banca Transilvania and BNP Paribas, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Banca Transilvania and BNP Paribas, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2