Comparison Overview

Citi

VS

PING AN

Citi

388 Greenwich Street, New York, New York, US, 10013
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.citigroup.com

Citi's mission is to serve as a trusted partner to our clients by responsibly providing financial services that enable growth and economic progress. Our core activities are safeguarding assets, lending money, making payments and accessing the capital markets on behalf of our clients. We have over 200 years of experience helping our clients meet the world's toughest challenges and embrace its greatest opportunities. We are Citi, the global bank – an institution connecting millions of people across hundreds of countries and cities. For information on Citi’s commitment to privacy, visit on.citi/privacy.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 197,159
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
View Profile

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518046, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
https://group.pingan.com/

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services and healthcare in the future will be through intelligent ecosystems enabled by technology. With over 220 million retail customers and nearly 611 million Internet users, Ping An is one of the largest financial services companies in the world. Technology has enabled us to bring changes to the landscape of retail finance and healthcare in China. Supported by the Group’s strong core financials, our continued investment in fintech and healthtech resulted in increasing revenue contributions from our tech units as well as several unicorns. Ping An ranked 6th in the Forbes Global 2000 list and 16th in the Fortune Global 500 list in 2021. Follow us for latest news, events and job opportunities.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 51,385
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/citi.jpeg
Citi
—
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/ping-an.jpeg
PING AN
—
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
Citi
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
PING AN
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Citi in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PING AN in 2025.

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

Citi cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/citi.jpeg
Citi
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ping-an.jpeg
PING AN
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Citi company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas PING AN company has not reported any.

In the current year, PING AN company and Citi company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither PING AN company nor Citi company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Citi company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other PING AN company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Citi company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while PING AN company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Citi company nor PING AN company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Citi nor PING AN holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Citi company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to PING AN company.

Citi company employs more people globally than PING AN company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Citi nor PING AN holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Citi nor PING AN holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Citi nor PING AN holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Citi nor PING AN holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Citi nor PING AN holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Citi nor PING AN 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