Comparison Overview

China CITIC Bank

VS

Yapı Kredi

China CITIC Bank

Beijing, 100101, CN
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Overview Thinking on the corporate banking of small and medium sized commercial banks • Ranked the 99th among 2008 Global Top 500 Financial Brands • Chen Xiaoxian, the Bank’s President, was granted “Top 10 Financial Figures” Award in the fourth consecutive year • Selection activity about the ranking list of “50 Most Influential Events of Financial Reform and Opening-up in China and 2008 China's Best Financial Institutions” • Best Corporate Banking Business Award among Top 10 Outstanding Commercial Banks in Asia • Global Times 2008 Most Popular Retail Banks among Readers • China Business News 2008 Development Strategy Award Corporate Financial Service Brand of the Year Retail Financial Service Brand of the Year President Chen Xiaoxian was awarded “Financier of the Year 2008” • Chinese Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Most Trusted Bank 2008 by Chinese CFO • British Magazine “The Banker” Ranked the 77th among the Top 1000 World Banks • British Financial Times Ranked the 260th among 2008 Global Top 500 Enterprises in Market Value • 21st Century Business Herald China’s Most Potential Private Banks of the Year • ASIA MONEY Best Domestic Providers of FX Services Best For Overall FX Services Best Domestic Banks for Cash Management in China • The Asian Banker Journal Best Wealth Management Award • Euromoney Best Private Banks of Stock Portfolio Management in China • America Annual Call Centre Exhibition World’s Best Call Center

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Yapı Kredi

Levent, İstanbul, Levent, 34740, TR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Yapı Kredi has been sustainably strengthening its market positioning in the sector since its establishment in 1944 through a customer-centric approach and focus on innovation. Yapı Kredi is the 3rd largest private bank in Turkey with total assets worth TL 411 billion as of the end of 2019. Constantly seeking to increase its contribution to the financing of the Turkish economy with its customer-centric approach, Yapı Kredi enlarged the volume of its total cash and non-cash loans by 4% in 2019 to TL 319 billion. Thus, Yapı Kredi maintained its position in 2nd place among private banks in this respect. The Bank serves its customers with its 846 branches covering all regions of Turkey and 16,631 employees. Yapı Kredi delivers its products and services via its advanced Alternative Delivery Channels (ADCs) that comprise 4,330 ATMs, innovative internet banking, leading mobile banking, 3 call centers and approximately 709 thousand POS terminals. 94% of the Bank’s transactions went through non-branch channels as at year-end 2019. Yapı Kredi is a fully integrated financial services group supported by its domestic and international subsidiaries. Yapı Kredi serves its customers through retail banking (comprising of individual banking, Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SME) banking and card payment systems, private banking and wealth management), as well as corporate and commercial banking. The Bank’s operations are supported by domestic subsidiaries in asset management, brokerage, leasing and factoring as well as international banking subsidiaries in the Netherlands, Malta and Azerbaijan. Yapı Kredi has a strong shareholding structure which ensures sustainable and profitable growth. 40.95% of the Bank’s shares are owned by Koç Financial Services, 9.02% of the shares are owned by Koç Holding A.Ş. The total direct and indirect shares of Koç Group amount to 49.99%. 20.00% of Bank’s shares are owned by UniCredit S.P.A. The remaining 30.03% is publicly traded on Borsa Istanbul

NAICS: 522
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 14,355
Subsidiaries: 53
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinaciticbank.jpeg
China CITIC Bank
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/yapikredi.jpeg
Yapı Kredi
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
China CITIC Bank
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Yapı Kredi
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China CITIC Bank in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yapı Kredi in 2026.

Incident History — China CITIC Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China CITIC Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Yapı Kredi (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yapı Kredi cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinaciticbank.jpeg
China CITIC Bank
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/yapikredi.jpeg
Yapı Kredi
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

China CITIC Bank company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Yapı Kredi company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Yapı Kredi company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to China CITIC Bank company.

In the current year, Yapı Kredi company and China CITIC Bank company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Yapı Kredi company nor China CITIC Bank company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Yapı Kredi company nor China CITIC Bank company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Yapı Kredi company nor China CITIC Bank company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither China CITIC Bank company nor Yapı Kredi company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Yapı Kredi company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to China CITIC Bank company.

Yapı Kredi company employs more people globally than China CITIC Bank company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China CITIC Bank nor Yapı Kredi 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