Comparison Overview

CIB Egypt

VS

Bank of America

CIB Egypt

21/23 Charles De Gaulle Giza. P.O. Box 2430 Cairo, Egypt., Giza, undefined, 11213, EG
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Commercial International Bank was established in 1975 as a joint venture between the National Bank of Egypt (NBE, 51%) and the Chase Manhattan Bank (49%) under the name "Chase National Bank of Egypt”. Following Chase's decision to divest its equity stake in 1987, NBE increased its shareholding to 99.9%, changing the Bank’s name to Commercial International Bank (Egypt) S.A.E. NBE’s stake gradually decreased through several public offerings till reaching 18.7%. In 2006, a Consortium led by Ripplewood Holdings acquired NBE stake. In July 2009, Actis, a leading emerging markets private equity firm, invested US$ 244 million to get shares in CIB, acquiring hence 50% of the Ripplewood Holdings Consortium’s stake. Five months later, Ripplewood sold its remaining 4.7% stake over the open market, marking the successful transition of strategic partnership to be with Actis, who then became CIB’s largest shareholder with a 9.1% stake. In March 2014,Actis sold a portion of its holding, representing 2.6% of the Bank’s total outstanding shares, in the open market to a group of international investors. In May 2014, Actis, successfully realised its investment in CIB and sold its remaining 6.5% to Subsidiaries wholly owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd “Fairfax”. CIB is Egypt’s leading private sector bank, offering a broad range of financial products and services to its customers, including enterprises of all sizes, institutions, households and high-net worth individuals. CIB strives to provide superior financial solutions to meet all customers’ needs. Having the strongest brand equity rightfully places CIB as the bank of choice for over 500 of Egypt’s largest corporations. CIB shows tremendous potential within the bourgeoning Retail and SME Banking markets. Through its superior management, high-operating standards, corporate governance best practices and training programs,CIB has succeeded in becoming the most profitable commercial bank operating in Egypt for more than 40 years.

NAICS: 522
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15,324
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Bank of America

100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC, US, 28202
Last Update: 2025-11-23

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: 239,193
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cibegypt.jpeg
CIB Egypt
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
CIB Egypt
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 CIB Egypt in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

Bank of America has 12.36% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — CIB Egypt (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CIB Egypt 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/cibegypt.jpeg
CIB Egypt
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

CIB Egypt 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 CIB Egypt company has not reported any.

In the current year, Bank of America company has reported more cyber incidents than CIB Egypt company.

Neither Bank of America company nor CIB Egypt company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bank of America company has disclosed at least one data breach, while CIB Egypt company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Bank of America company nor CIB Egypt company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CIB Egypt company nor Bank of America company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither CIB Egypt company nor Bank of America company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Bank of America company employs more people globally than CIB Egypt company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CIB Egypt nor Bank of America holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H