Comparison Overview

BMO U.S.

VS

Comerica Bank

BMO U.S.

320 S Canal St, None, Chicago, Illinois, US, 60661
Last Update: 2026-01-18

We’re a bank, but there’s more to it than that. We're a top ten bank in North America and have been serving our customers since 1817. BMO provides personal and commercial banking, global markets and investment banking services to 13 million customers and clients. And with over 54,000 employees, we take caring for our people seriously.​ When you join BMO, it opens a world of opportunities. This is a team that's committed to helping you succeed – personally and professionally. Because at BMO, when you grow, we grow. ​ You know your worth and so do we. That’s why we offer the right mix of learning programs, on-the-job experiences, and opportunities to build personal and professional connections – so you can build a meaningful career and thrive as a part of a winning culture. ​ Sound like your kind of place? Then we should be co-workers.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,405
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Comerica Bank

1717 Main Street, Dallas, TX, US, 75201
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas, strategically aligned by the Business Bank, the Retail Bank, and Wealth Management. The Business Bank provides companies of all sizes with an array of credit and non-credit financial products and services. The Retail Bank delivers personalized financial products and services to consumers. Wealth Management serves the needs of high net worth clients and institutions. Comerica’s approximately 8,000 colleagues focus on relationships, and helping people and businesses be successful. Comerica operates in seven of the 10 largest U.S. cities, with more than 430 banking centers in its primary markets of Texas, Arizona, California, Florida and Michigan. Select businesses operate in several other states, as well as in Canada and Mexico. Comerica is among the 25 largest U.S. banking companies. Visit Comerica's Facebook page at facebook.com/Comerica or on Twitter at @ComericaBank for more information on how Comerica is making a positive difference in the communities it serves. To learn more about Comerica’s products, services and career opportunities, visit Comerica.com.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,077
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/bmo-us.jpeg
BMO U.S.
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/comerica-bank.jpeg
Comerica Bank
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
BMO U.S.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Comerica Bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BMO U.S. in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Comerica Bank in 2026.

Incident History — BMO U.S. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BMO U.S. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Comerica Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bmo-us.jpeg
BMO U.S.
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2018
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Error
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/comerica-bank.jpeg
Comerica Bank
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Comerica Bank company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to BMO U.S. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

BMO U.S. company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Comerica Bank company has not reported any.

In the current year, Comerica Bank company and BMO U.S. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Comerica Bank company nor BMO U.S. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

BMO U.S. company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Comerica Bank company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Comerica Bank company nor BMO U.S. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BMO U.S. company nor Comerica Bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BMO U.S. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Comerica Bank company.

BMO U.S. company employs more people globally than Comerica Bank company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Comerica Bank 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