Comparison Overview

CIC

VS

Groupe Crédit Agricole

CIC

6, Avenue de Provence, None, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75009
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

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

Groupe Crédit Agricole

12 place des Etats-Unis, Montrouge, FR, 92120
Last Update: 2025-11-26

The Crédit Agricole group is the leading partner of the French economy and one of the largest banking groups in Europe. It is the leading retail bank in Europe as well as the first European asset manager, the first bancassurer in Europe and the third European player in project finance. Built on its strong cooperative and mutual roots, its 157,000 employees and the 27,423 directors of its Local and Regional Banks, the Crédit Agricole group is a responsible and responsive bank serving 54 million customers and 12,1 million mutual shareholders. Thanks to its universal customer-focused retail banking model – based on the cooperation between its retail banks and their r elated business lines –, the Crédit Agricole group supports its customers’ projects in France and around the world: day-to-day banking, home loans, consumer finance, savings, insurances, asset management, real estate, leasing and factoring, and corporate and investment banking. Crédit Agricole also stands out for its dynamic, innovative corporate social responsibility policy, for the benefit of the economy. This policy is based on a pragmatic approach which permeates across the Group and engages each employee.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 58,977
Subsidiaries: 48
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/credit-agricole.jpeg
Groupe Crédit Agricole
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
Groupe Crédit Agricole
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 Groupe Crédit Agricole in 2025.

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

CIC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Groupe Crédit Agricole (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Groupe Crédit Agricole 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/credit-agricole.jpeg
Groupe Crédit Agricole
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Groupe Crédit Agricole company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to CIC company.

In the current year, Groupe Crédit Agricole company and CIC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Groupe Crédit Agricole company nor CIC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Groupe Crédit Agricole company nor CIC company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Groupe Crédit Agricole company nor CIC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CIC company nor Groupe Crédit Agricole company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Groupe Crédit Agricole company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CIC company.

Groupe Crédit Agricole company employs more people globally than CIC company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CIC nor Groupe Crédit Agricole 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