Comparison Overview

BNP Paribas Personal Finance

VS

AIB

BNP Paribas Personal Finance

undefined, Paris, undefined, 92300, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-17

BNP Paribas Personal Finance is 100% BNP Paribas group subsidiary and the European leader in personal finance. With a presence in 33 countries, our customers, partners and employees write our company’s story as they share our philosophy: promote access to a more responsible and sustainable consumption. ━ To learn more about our Data Protection Policy: https://bnpp.lk/0L782b

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 14,535
Subsidiaries: 61
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

AIB

AIB Group , Molesworth Street , 2, IE
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

We're here to keep you updated on AIB Group news, financial services industry insights, expert business reports and all the latest AIB career opportunities. We are one of Ireland’s major retail banks serving personal, business and corporate customers. We offer a range of banking products and services such as mortgages, savings and business banking. We have a customer centric view, always putting the customer first and supporting our customers at every stage. We have over 2.3m million customers using our multifaceted service. We provide our customers with a diverse range of contact channels; through our branches, commercial centres and our direct channels, such as AIB internet and telephone banking, self-service banking and our award-winning mobile banking app. AIB has a presence in Northern Ireland through its community-based full service bank, AIB NI, and in Britain where AIB GB serves its target audience of SMEs, owner-managed businesses and professional firms. EBS is also now part of the AIB Group and offers mortgage and deposit products and services from its own branch network. This is a public channel so never post your personal or account details. AIB provides banking related services in Ireland and all AIB content is intended for use in Ireland. Information is correct at time of posting and may be subject to change. No comments made by any employee, agent or contractor of AIB or any user should be construed as financial, investment or other specialist advice or as recommendations. AIB is not liable for any comments/postings on this channel. AIB Social Media Terms of Use and Privacy Statement apply https://aib.ie/social/social-media-privacy AIB and AIB Group are registered business names of Allied Irish Banks, p.l.c. Registered Office

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,963
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bnp-paribas-personal-finance.jpeg
BNP Paribas Personal Finance
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/aib.jpeg
AIB
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
BNP Paribas Personal Finance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AIB
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNP Paribas Personal Finance in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AIB in 2026.

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

BNP Paribas Personal Finance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

AIB cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bnp-paribas-personal-finance.jpeg
BNP Paribas Personal Finance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aib.jpeg
AIB
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

BNP Paribas Personal Finance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to AIB company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, AIB company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to BNP Paribas Personal Finance company.

In the current year, AIB company and BNP Paribas Personal Finance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither AIB company nor BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither AIB company nor BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither AIB company nor BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance company nor AIB company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to AIB company.

BNP Paribas Personal Finance company employs more people globally than AIB company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor AIB 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