Comparison Overview

Edward Jones

VS

Northern Trust

Edward Jones

12555 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO, US, 63131
Last Update: 2026-01-19

Edward Jones is a leading North American financial services firm in the U.S. and through its affiliate in Canada. The firm’s more than 20,000 financial advisors throughout North America serve more than 9 million clients with a total of $2.2 trillion in client assets under care as of December 31, 2024. Edward Jones' purpose is to partner for positive impact to improve the lives of its clients and colleagues, and together, better our communities and society. Through the dedication of the firm's approximately 54,000 associates and our branch presence in 68% of U.S. counties and most Canadian provinces and territories, the firm is committed to helping more people achieve financially what is most important to them. The Edward Jones website is at www.edwardjones.com, and its recruiting website is www.careers.edwardjones.com. Member SIPC.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 44,970
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Northern Trust

50 S. La Salle, Chicago, Illinois, US, 60603
Last Update: 2026-01-18

As a global leader in innovative wealth management, asset servicing and investment solutions, Northern Trust (Nasdaq: NTRS) is proud to guide the world’s most successful individuals, families and institutions by remaining true to our enduring principles of service, expertise and integrity. A globally recognized Fortune 500 Company in continuous operation since 1889, we’ve built a legacy of empowering clients to reach their goals with confidence. Since our roots as a trust bank, we’ve grown to a global presence with more than 24,000 employees in more than 20 countries and across five core business units: Wealth Management Asset Management Asset Servicing Technology Corporate Functions Join a Team That’s Made for Greater At Northern Trust, we refer to our employees as partners – with good reason. We understand that relationships are the key to our success. Here you’ll join a diverse and inclusive team of innovators with the drive to challenge the way things have always been done. Instead of choosing between a dynamic career and work-life balance, enjoy working with a team that supports your goals in the office and at home. We’ll help you get where you want to go without sacrificing what matters most to you. As of December 31 2024, Northern Trust had: $16.8 trillion assets under custody/administration $13.3 trillion in assets under custody $1.6 trillion in assets under management $156 billion in banking assets Stay connected with us: NT Careers Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ntcareers Northern Trust Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/northerntrustcompany/

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 29,579
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edward-jones.jpeg
Edward Jones
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/northern-trust.jpeg
Northern Trust
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
Edward Jones
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Northern Trust
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Edward Jones in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Northern Trust in 2026.

Incident History — Edward Jones (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edward Jones cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Northern Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Northern Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/edward-jones.jpeg
Edward Jones
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Data Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/northern-trust.jpeg
Northern Trust
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Edward Jones company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Northern Trust company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Northern Trust company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Edward Jones company.

In the current year, Northern Trust company and Edward Jones company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Northern Trust company nor Edward Jones company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Northern Trust company and Edward Jones company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Northern Trust company nor Edward Jones company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Edward Jones company nor Northern Trust company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Edward Jones company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Northern Trust company.

Edward Jones company employs more people globally than Northern Trust company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Edward Jones nor Northern Trust holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N