Comparison Overview

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

VS

BNP Paribas Fortis

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-09

Founded in 1908, Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. ("the Bank"​) is one of the oldest banks in China as well as one of the note-issuing banks in modern China. The Bank was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in June 2005 and on the Shanghai Stock Exchange in May 2007. The Bank currently has 182 domestic branches, comprising 30 provincial branches, 7 branches directly managed by the Head Office and 145 managed by provinces. It has also established 2,701 banking outlets in 202 cities and 144 counties nationwide. In addition, the Bank has set up 12 overseas institutions, comprising branches in Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Frankfurt, Sydney, Macau, Ho Chi Minh City, Taipei and Bank of Communications (UK) Co., Ltd. According to the "Top 1000 World Banks 2012"​ published by the British magazine "The Banker"​, the Bank was ranked number 30 in terms of its Tier 1 Capital, moving 5 positions forward as compared with the prior year, and was among the top 50 for the fourth consecutive year. The Bank is one of the major financial services providers in China. The Bank's business scope includes commercial banking, securities services, trust services, financial leasing, fund management, insurance and offshore financial services. Its wholly-owned subsidiaries include BOCOM International Holdings Company Limited, China BOCOM Insurance Co., Ltd and Bank of Communications Finance Leasing Co., Ltd. Subsidiaries controlled by the Bank include Bank of Communications Schroder Fund Management Co., Ltd, Bank of Communications International Trust Co., Ltd, BoCommLife Insurance Company Limited, Dayi Bocomm Xingmin Rural Bank, Zhejiang Anji BOCOM Rural Bank Ltd, Xinjiang Shihezi BOCOM Rural Bank and Qingdao Laoshan BOCOM Rural Bank. In addition, the Bank is the largest shareholder of Jiangsu Changshu Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 12,684
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

BNP Paribas Fortis

Rue Montagne du Parc 3, Brussels, 1000, BE
Last Update: 2025-12-11

For over 200 years, BNP Paribas Fortis has helped drive the growth and prosperity of Belgium’s economy and communities. The mission of our 12,000 colleagues is clear: be the trusted financial partner for four million individual customers, businesses and organisations. We do this by offering advice and solutions via the channels they prefer: digitally, by phone, via video call or in a bank or post office branch.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 12,043
Subsidiaries: 77
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bank-of-communications-limited-london-branch.jpeg
Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch
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/bnpparibasfortis.jpeg
BNP Paribas Fortis
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 Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BNP Paribas Fortis
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNP Paribas Fortis in 2025.

Incident History — Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

BNP Paribas Fortis 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-communications-limited-london-branch.jpeg
Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bnpparibasfortis.jpeg
BNP Paribas Fortis
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical ATM Skimming Device
Motivation: Financial Gain (Likely)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: ATM Skimming
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Account Compromise
Blog: Blog

FAQ

BNP Paribas Fortis company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

BNP Paribas Fortis company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company has not reported any.

In the current year, BNP Paribas Fortis company and Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BNP Paribas Fortis company nor Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

BNP Paribas Fortis company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither BNP Paribas Fortis company nor Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company nor BNP Paribas Fortis company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BNP Paribas Fortis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company.

Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch company employs more people globally than BNP Paribas Fortis company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. London Branch nor BNP Paribas Fortis 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.

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
Description

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

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
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."

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
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.

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
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).

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