Comparison Overview

BNP Paribas Personal Finance

VS

Bank of America

BNP Paribas Personal Finance

undefined, Paris, undefined, 92300, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://personal-finance.bnpparibas/

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
View Profile

Bank of America

100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, 28202, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bankofamerica.com

Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individuals, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. The company serves approximately 56 million U.S. consumer and small business relationships. It is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading. This LinkedIn company page is moderated. For more information, please visit: https://bit.ly/32FDdQr. For account issues, please visit: https://bit.ly/2GeTIeP.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 232,516
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

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/bank-of-america.jpeg
Bank of America
—
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
Bank of America
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 Bank of America 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 — Bank of America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bank of America 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/bank-of-america.jpeg
Bank of America
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error (Email Misconfiguration)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Bank of America company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has not reported any.

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

Neither Bank of America company nor BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bank of America company has disclosed at least one data breach, while BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Bank of America company nor BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance company nor Bank of America company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BNP Paribas Personal Finance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Bank of America company.

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

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BNP Paribas Personal Finance nor Bank of America holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References