Comparison Overview

CIC

VS

Attijariwafa bank

CIC

6, Avenue de Provence, None, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75009
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cic.fr

CIC is the fourth largest banking group in France, consisting of seven regional banks which operate across France through a network of 1,844 branches employing 24,000 staff. CIC's customer base includes 2.7 million retail clients. One in eleven self-employed professionals is a CIC group client and nearly one in three companies banks with CIC Group.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,132
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Attijariwafa bank

2 Boulevard Moulay Youssef Casablanca, MA
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.attijariwafabank.com

With our universal banking model, our pan-African scope, the complementarity of our businesses and our solid expertise, we are a leading player in the Moroccan and African financial sector. For over a century, we’ve been able to adapt by diversifying our business lines, renewing our offers and revising our structures to fulfil our aim of becoming the leading customer service bank. At Attijariwafa bank, we currently support 10 million retail, professional, corporate and institutional clients, with 20,125 employees in 25 countries throughout Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Show more Show less

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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cic.jpeg
CIC
—
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/attijariwafa-bank.jpeg
Attijariwafa 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
Compliance Summary
CIC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Attijariwafa bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CIC in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Attijariwafa bank in 2025.

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

CIC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Attijariwafa bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Attijariwafa bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cic.jpeg
CIC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/attijariwafa-bank.jpeg
Attijariwafa bank
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CIC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Attijariwafa bank company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Attijariwafa bank company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to CIC company.

In the current year, Attijariwafa bank company and CIC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Attijariwafa bank company nor CIC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Attijariwafa bank company nor CIC company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Attijariwafa bank company nor CIC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CIC company nor Attijariwafa bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither CIC company nor Attijariwafa bank company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

CIC company employs more people globally than Attijariwafa bank company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CIC nor Attijariwafa bank 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