Comparison Overview

BNY

VS

Old Mutual

BNY

240 Greenwich St, New York, NY, 10286, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.bny.com

We help make money work for the world — managing it, moving it and keeping it safe. As a leading global financial services company at the center of the world’s financial system, we touch nearly 20% of the world’s investable assets. Today we help over 90% of Fortune 100 companies and nearly all the top 100 banks globally access the money they need. For more than 240 years we have partnered alongside our clients to create solutions that benefit businesses, communities and people everywhere. Follow BNY on Instagram & X: @BNYglobal

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 55,698
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Old Mutual

107 Rivonia Rd, Johannesburg, Gauteng, undefined, ZA
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.oldmutual.com

Old Mutual Limited is a listed company on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and has secondary listings on the London, Malawi, Namibia and Zimbabwe stock exchanges. As a Pan-African financial services company, we are focused on Africa, her needs and her people. Together with you, we have educated our children, given more homes warmth and light, empowered small businesses and improved infrastructure in Africa. Our story will continue #WithAfricaForAfrica.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 12,699
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bny-mellon.jpeg
BNY
—
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/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
—
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
BNY
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Old Mutual
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNY in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual in 2025.

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

BNY cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Old Mutual (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bny-mellon.jpeg
BNY
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

BNY company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Old Mutual company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Old Mutual company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to BNY company.

In the current year, Old Mutual company and BNY company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Old Mutual company nor BNY company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Old Mutual company nor BNY company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Old Mutual company nor BNY company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BNY company nor Old Mutual company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BNY company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Old Mutual company.

BNY company employs more people globally than Old Mutual company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BNY nor Old Mutual holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References