Comparison Overview

Bank of America

VS

UOB

Bank of America

100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC, US, 28202
Last Update: 2025-11-23

Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individuals, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. The company serves approximately 56 million U.S. consumer and small business relationships. It is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading. This LinkedIn company page is moderated. For more information, please visit: https://bit.ly/32FDdQr. For account issues, please visit: https://bit.ly/2GeTIeP.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 239,193
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

UOB

80 Raffles Place, Singapore, SG, 048624
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

We’re here to do Right By You. At UOB, we aspire to build a better future for the people and businesses in the region. Through our extensive network and suite of capabilities, we offer financial solutions to the people and businesses within, and connecting with ASEAN. We create solutions tailored to your unique needs through data and relationship-led insights. Our comprehensive regional network and one-bank approach connects your business to new opportunities in ASEAN. We help businesses to advance responsibly and guide personal wealth to grow sustainably. We foster inclusiveness and environmental well-being for stronger societies. This is how we stay committed to forging a sustainable future for generations to come. Note: For the terms of use of our LinkedIn channel, please visit: https://go.uob.com/socialmedia

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 28,225
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bank-of-america.jpeg
Bank of America
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/uob.jpeg
UOB
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
Bank of America
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UOB
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

Bank of America has 12.36% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UOB in 2025.

Incident History — Bank of America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bank of America cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UOB cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bank-of-america.jpeg
Bank of America
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error (Email Misconfiguration)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uob.jpeg
UOB
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2021
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Impersonation Scam
Blog: Blog

FAQ

UOB company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bank of America company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bank of America company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to UOB company.

In the current year, Bank of America company has reported more cyber incidents than UOB company.

Neither UOB company nor Bank of America company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bank of America company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other UOB company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither UOB company nor Bank of America company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Bank of America company nor UOB company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Bank of America company nor UOB company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Bank of America company employs more people globally than UOB company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bank of America nor UOB 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