Comparison Overview

Banco Bci

VS

ING Nederland

Banco Bci

125, Las Condes, Región Metropolitana, CL
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Porque el mundo que nos rodea se actualiza constantemente, porque tu decides hacer tu vida más simple: para entretenerte, para compartir con tu familia o para moverte por la ciudad. En Bci evolucionamos junto a ti, en este mundo donde todo se transforma una y otra vez, con soluciones que harán tu vida más simple. Te invitamos a vivir positivamente este gran cambio para que sigamos evolucionando juntos. Únete a nuestro equipo en www.trabajaenbci.cl y #SeamosDiferentes

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 15,100
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

ING Nederland

Amsterdam Zuidoost, 1102 CT Netherlands, Amsterdam Zuidoost, 1102 CT, NL
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

ING ING is a global bank with a strong European base. With 14,500 employees in the Netherlands, we’re one of the biggest employers of the country. Our research tells us that we stand out here because of our great working culture, competitive benefits, and interesting work. We believe in sustainable progress for all, not just for the few. We aim to support and contribute to economic, social and environmental progress. Collaborative and inclusive We’re proud of our diverse and multinational make-up. Joining the ING team means contributing to a collaborative and inclusive culture, having a hybrid way of working, and being part of the positive impact that we strive to make on people and the planet. Purpose ING's purpose is empowering people to stay a step ahead in life and in business. This purpose guides us in everything we do. Rather than telling our people what to do, we trust them and encourage them to carve out their career in a way that works best for them. We want to enable them to grow in their own way, without being held down. Because doing great things starts by doing your thing.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,446
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bci.jpeg
Banco Bci
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/ing-nederland.jpeg
ING Nederland
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 Bci
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ING Nederland
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco Bci in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ING Nederland in 2026.

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

Banco Bci cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — ING Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ING Nederland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bci.jpeg
Banco Bci
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ing-nederland.jpeg
ING Nederland
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Banco Bci company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to ING Nederland company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, ING Nederland company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Banco Bci company.

In the current year, ING Nederland company and Banco Bci company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither ING Nederland company nor Banco Bci company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither ING Nederland company nor Banco Bci company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither ING Nederland company nor Banco Bci company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Banco Bci company nor ING Nederland company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ING Nederland company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Banco Bci company.

Banco Bci company employs more people globally than ING Nederland company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Banco Bci nor ING Nederland 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