Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-PyrénéesCaisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées
VS
BNP Paribas FortisBNP Paribas Fortis
Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées

Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées

10 avenue Maxwell, Toulouse, Occitanie 31100, FR

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile

Banque coopérative de proximité, la Caisse d’Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées est un établissement financier de premier plan sur son territoire. Pour favoriser le développement régional, elle accompagne toutes les clientèles : particuliers, professionnels, entreprises, acteurs...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:41
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
BNP Paribas Fortis

BNP Paribas Fortis

Rue Montagne du Parc 3, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

For over 200 years, BNP Paribas Fortis has helped drive the growth and prosperity of Belgium’s economy and communities. The mission of our 12,000 colleagues is clear: be the trusted financial partner for four million individual customers, businesses and organisations. W...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:12,028
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées

Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
BNP Paribas Fortis

BNP Paribas Fortis

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNP Paribas Fortis in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - BNP Paribas Fortis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BNP Paribas Fortis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées

Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BNP Paribas Fortis

BNP Paribas Fortis

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées company and BNP Paribas Fortis company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées and BNP Paribas Fortis, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées and BNP Paribas Fortis, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées or BNP Paribas Fortis ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées or BNP Paribas Fortis ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées and BNP Paribas Fortis, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Caisse d'Epargne de Midi-Pyrénées and BNP Paribas Fortis, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1