Comparison Overview

BBVA

VS

Allied Bank Limited

BBVA

Plaza de San Nicolas 4, Bilbao, Vizcaya, 48005, ES
Last Update: 2026-01-18

At BBVA we are leading the transformation of banking worldwide, united in pursuing our goal of bringing the age of opportunity to everyone. Firmly focused on the future, our on-going digital transformation is already producing disruptive innovations that power our vision of banking. Every one of our 121,486 employees, from branch staff to senior leaders, plays an essential role in giving our 71.5 million customers the cutting edge banking solutions that they deserve. Building on 166 years of history we know the importance of constant development, which is why we place so much confidence in the collaborative working environment that enables our people to grow and excel. If you would like to learn about the culture and opportunities on offer at a company that is leading the way for 21st century banking, head to the ‘Life’ tab to find out more.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 119,358
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Allied Bank Limited

3 Tipu Block, Main Boulevard, New Garden Town, Lahore–Pakistan, Lahore, Punjab, PK, 54000
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Allied Bank is one of Pakistan's leading banks, with a vision to become a dynamic and efficient institution providing integrated solutions, aiming to be the first choice for customers. Currently, the bank maintains a country-wide network of over 1,400 branches and more than 1,560 ATMs. To protect your security and privacy, we recommend NOT sharing any account or financial information when posting on our LinkedIn page. Disclaimer: i. Allied Bank reserves the right to hide/delete comments or posts deemed abusive, derogatory, inflammatory, or otherwise inappropriate and to ban/block users from its social media pages without prior notice for such violations. ii. Any user comments or links posted that are criminal in nature, or that instigate or imply violence toward oneself or others, may be reported to the relevant governmental authorities.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,993
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/bbva.jpeg
BBVA
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/allied-bank-limited.jpeg
Allied Bank Limited
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
BBVA
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Allied Bank Limited
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BBVA in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Allied Bank Limited in 2026.

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

BBVA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Allied Bank Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Allied Bank Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bbva.jpeg
BBVA
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/allied-bank-limited.jpeg
Allied Bank Limited
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

BBVA company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Allied Bank Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Allied Bank Limited company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to BBVA company.

In the current year, Allied Bank Limited company and BBVA company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Allied Bank Limited company nor BBVA company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Allied Bank Limited company nor BBVA company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Allied Bank Limited company nor BBVA company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BBVA company nor Allied Bank Limited company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BBVA company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Allied Bank Limited company.

BBVA company employs more people globally than Allied Bank Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BBVA nor Allied Bank Limited holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N