Comparison Overview

CIC

VS

UOB

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

UOB

80 Raffles Place, Singapore, SG, 048624
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.uobgroup.com/

We’re here to do Right By You. At UOB, we aspire to build a better future for the people and businesses in the region. Through our extensive network and suite of capabilities, we offer financial solutions to the people and businesses within, and connecting with ASEAN. We create solutions tailored to your unique needs through data and relationship-led insights. Our comprehensive regional network and one-bank approach connects your business to new opportunities in ASEAN. We help businesses to advance responsibly and guide personal wealth to grow sustainably. We foster inclusiveness and environmental well-being for stronger societies. This is how we stay committed to forging a sustainable future for generations to come. Note: For the terms of use of our LinkedIn channel, please visit: https://go.uob.com/socialmedia

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 28,225
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

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/uob.jpeg
UOB
—
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
UOB
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 UOB in 2025.

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

CIC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UOB 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/uob.jpeg
UOB
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2021
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Impersonation Scam
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

UOB company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CIC company has not reported any.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither CIC nor UOB holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither CIC nor UOB holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CIC nor UOB holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CIC nor UOB holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CIC nor UOB holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CIC nor UOB holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CIC nor UOB 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