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

Comparison Overview

DFCC BankDFCC Bank
VS
BNP Paribas FortisBNP Paribas Fortis
DFCC Bank

DFCC Bank

73/5, Colombo 03, undefined, undefined, LK

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.dfcc.lk
763/1000Fair

DFCC Bank, the Bank for Everyone is a full-service Commercial Bank with a legacy of 68 years and is one of Sri Lanka’s foremost financial conglomerates. Established in 1955 as the first Development Bank in Sri Lanka and one of the oldest in the region, DFCC Bank has be...

NAICS:522
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:2,058
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
BNP Paribas Fortis

BNP Paribas Fortis

Rue Montagne du Parc 3, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

For over 200 years, BNP Paribas Fortis has helped drive the growth and prosperity of Belgium’s economy and communities. The mission of our 12,000 colleagues is clear: be the trusted financial partner for four million individual customers, businesses and organisations. W...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:12,028
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DFCC Bank

DFCC Bank

-
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
BNP Paribas Fortis

BNP Paribas Fortis

-
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 DFCC Bank in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNP Paribas Fortis in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DFCC Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DFCC Bank 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 - BNP Paribas Fortis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BNP Paribas Fortis 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...
DFCC Bank

DFCC Bank

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BNP Paribas Fortis

BNP Paribas Fortis

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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:N/UI:P/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