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

Comparison Overview

Enpara.com ŞirketimEnpara.com Şirketim
VS
PT Bank SMBC Indonesia TbkPT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk
Enpara.com Şirketim

Enpara.com Şirketim

İstanbul, None, İstanbul, İstanbul, TR, 34394

Last Update: 26/04/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Türkiye'nin ilk şubesiz dijital bankası olarak 2012 yılından beri bireysel müşterilerimize verdiğimiz şubesiz, masrafsız ve kolay bankacılık hizmetini artık şirketler için de sunuyoruz! Enpara.com'da şubemiz olmadığı için şube kirası, elektrik, su, doğalgaz, kırtasiye v...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk

PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk

Menara SMBC-Jl. Dr. Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung Kav. 5.5 – 5.6, Jakarta 12950, Jakarta Selatan, DKI Jakarta, ID, 12950

Last Update: 24/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smbci.com/
783/1000Fair

With a renewed vision for growth and innovation, we rebranded as PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk (SMBC Indonesia) in 2024, formerly known as PT Bank BTPN Tbk. This rebranding reflects our response to the dynamic changes, allowing us to consolidate our strengths and deliver e...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:11,237
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Enpara.com Şirketim

Enpara.com Şirketim

-
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
PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk

PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk

-
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 Enpara.com Şirketim in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Enpara.com Şirketim (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Enpara.com Şirketim 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 - PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk 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...
Enpara.com Şirketim

Enpara.com Şirketim

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk

PT Bank SMBC Indonesia Tbk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9