Comparison Overview

Banco de Chile

VS

Lion Finance Group PLC

Banco de Chile

Ahumada 251, Santiago, Santiago, 8320206, CL
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Somos una Corporación líder y comprometida con el país que brinda servicios financieros de excelencia a cada segmento de clientes. Buscamos permanentemente ser el mejor Banco para ellos, ser el mejor lugar para trabajar y ser la mejor inversión para nuestros accionistas. Lo hacemos de forma colaborativa y comprometida con las personas que conforman nuestra organización y con el desarrollo de la comunidad.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,812
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Lion Finance Group PLC

None
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Lion Finance Group PLC (formerly Bank of Georgia Group PLC) is a FTSE 250 holding company, whose main operating subsidiaries are leading, customer-centric universal banks – Bank of Georgia in Georgia and Ameriabank in Armenia. Building on our competitive strengths, we drive business growth and maintain high profitability. We generate strong returns, create opportunities for our stakeholders, and make a positive impact in the communities where we operate.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,001
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/banco-de-chile.jpeg
Banco de Chile
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/lion-finance-group-plc.jpeg
Lion Finance Group PLC
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
Banco de Chile
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lion Finance Group PLC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco de Chile in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lion Finance Group PLC in 2025.

Incident History — Banco de Chile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banco de Chile cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lion Finance Group PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lion Finance Group PLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/banco-de-chile.jpeg
Banco de Chile
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lion-finance-group-plc.jpeg
Lion Finance Group PLC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Banco de Chile company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lion Finance Group PLC company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Lion Finance Group PLC company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Banco de Chile company.

In the current year, Lion Finance Group PLC company and Banco de Chile company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lion Finance Group PLC company nor Banco de Chile company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Lion Finance Group PLC company nor Banco de Chile company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Lion Finance Group PLC company nor Banco de Chile company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Banco de Chile company nor Lion Finance Group PLC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Banco de Chile company nor Lion Finance Group PLC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Banco de Chile company employs more people globally than Lion Finance Group PLC company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Banco de Chile nor Lion Finance Group PLC holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H