Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANCCREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC
VS
Garanti BBVAGaranti BBVA
CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC

CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC

99, Avenue de Genève, Annecy, 74000, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

Avec 1 000 Elus et salariés, le Crédit Mutuel Savoie-Mont Blanc est présent en Haute-Savoie et Savoie au travers de 45 Caisses Locales représentants 67 points de vente et propose une offre diversifiée de services à une clientèle de particuliers, de professionnels et d'e...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:114
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Garanti BBVA

Garanti BBVA

Nisbetiye Mh., Aytar Caddesi No:2 Zincirlikuyu, Istanbul, Istanbul, TR

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

With a digitalization and people oriented vision, we contribute to our economy and society. We make great efforts to help you make the best financial decisions by offering you the opportunities of the future with our dynamic business model, pioneering technology and inn...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:17,024
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC

CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Garanti BBVA

Garanti BBVA

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Garanti BBVA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Garanti BBVA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Garanti BBVA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC

CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Garanti BBVA

Garanti BBVA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC company and Garanti BBVA company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC and Garanti BBVA, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC and Garanti BBVA, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC or Garanti BBVA ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC or Garanti BBVA ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC and Garanti BBVA, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between CREDIT MUTUEL SAVOIE-MONT BLANC and Garanti BBVA, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16197
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. The affected element is the function handleMessageReceive of the file pkg/channels/feishu/feishu_64.go of the component Group Message Handler. Such manipulation leads to missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-16196
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. Impacted is the function isPrivateOrRestrictedIP of the file pkg/tools/integration/web.go of the component web_fetch. This manipulation causes server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 2efbe5d560e7ed9bc5209c203dc4aa6ecdbc7405. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-16195
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. This issue affects the function dispatchIncoming of the file pkg/channels/wecom/wecom.go of the component Group Message Handler. The manipulation results in incorrect authorization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-10130
SUMMARY

QueryWeaver contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to obtain valid session tokens for existing accounts by submitting a signup request with a known victim email address. The signup route unconditionally creates and links a new token to the matching Identity via a Cypher MERGE operation before checking whether the email belongs to an existing account, causing the server to return a valid authenticated session token for the victim's identity without requiring any prior credentials or user interaction.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-16194
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in zhayujie CowAgent up to 2.1.1. This affects the function WebFetch.execute of the file agent/tools/web_fetch/web_fetch.py. Executing a manipulation of the argument url can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. Upgrading to version 2.1.2 is able to mitigate this issue. This patch is called ea47f3097eed4f8295c4cb3d76ecb97e0f43d632. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The vendor was contacted early, responded in a very professional manner and quickly released a fixed version of the affected product.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8