Comparison Overview

CIC

VS

Nordea

CIC

6, Avenue de Provence, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75009
Last Update: 2026-01-18
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: 11,058
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Nordea

Aleksanterinkatu 36 B, Helsinki, FI
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849
http://www.nordea.com

We are a universal bank with a 200-year history of supporting and growing the Nordic economies – enabling dreams and aspirations for a greater good. Every day, we work to support our customers’ financial development, delivering best-in-class omnichannel customer experiences and driving sustainable change. We are a full-service universal bank and the third largest corporation in the Nordic region and one of the top 10 financial services companies in Europe based on market capitalisation. We are present in 17 countries, including our four Nordic home markets which together constitute the 10th largest economy in the world. As demand for digital services increases, we're continuously working to become your future digital bank by improving the products and services we offer, such as new online banking platforms, mobile payments and analytics tools, to name a few. The Nordea share is listed on the Nasdaq Helsinki, Nasdaq Copenhagen and Nasdaq Stockholm exchanges. Read more about us at nordea.com. We value your opinions and welcome your comments and questions on our posts here on LinkedIn. Please note that we reply mainly during business hours, Monday-Friday. Please keep a polite, professional and constructive tone. We remove comments containing crude language and derogatory views of our staff and other people who comment on our posts. We do not allow content that is unrelated to the subject, and we remove discriminatory and racist comments as well as spam and advertising.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 29,591
Subsidiaries: 1
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/nordea.jpeg
Nordea
—
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
Nordea
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CIC in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nordea in 2026.

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

CIC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Nordea 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/nordea.jpeg
Nordea
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Nordea company nor CIC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Nordea company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CIC company.

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

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CIC nor Nordea holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References