Comparison Overview

BMO U.S.

VS

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

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

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

No.55 FuXingMenNei Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, P.R.C, Beijing, Beijing, 100140, CN
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. (ICBC) (simplified Chinese: 中国工商银行; traditional Chinese: 中國工商銀行; pinyin: Zhōngguó Gōngshāng Yínháng, more commonly just 工行 Gōngháng) is China's largest bank and the largest bank in the world. It is one of China's "Big Four" state-owned commercial banks (the other three being the Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, and China Construction Bank). It is the largest bank in the world in terms of market value, the world's largest bank by deposits, and the world's most profitable bank. It was founded as a limited company on January 1, 1984. As of 2009, it had assets of RMB 11 trillion (US$1.6 trillion), with over 18,000 outlets including 106 overseas branches and agents globally. In July 2007, with a market capitalization of US$254 billion, it became the world's most valuable bank after a surge in its share price, overtaking Citigroup.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 19,772
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/icbc_2.jpeg
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
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
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
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 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 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 — Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 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/icbc_2.jpeg
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 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 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company has not reported any.

In the current year, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company and BMO U.S. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 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 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company nor BMO U.S. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BMO U.S. company nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BMO U.S. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company.

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China company employs more people globally than BMO U.S. company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BMO U.S. nor Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 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