Comparison Overview
Fidelity Bank

Fidelity Bank
3490 Piedmont Road, Atlanta, 30305, US
Last Update: 20/08/2026
The Fidelity Bank Promise: To be the Number One Community Bank with the Best Customer Service in Town. Fidelity Bank is a full service bank owned by Fidelity Southern Corporation (NASDAQ: LION), one of the largest bank holding companies based in Atlanta with $3.8 Bill...

Sicredi
Av. Assis Brasil, Porto Alegre, 91010-003, BR
Last Update: 17/09/2026
We are born collaborative We believe that change is only possible when everyone works together for the same purpose, after all, cooperativism is in our DNA. Besides this, we know that as important as it is to provide affordable financial solutions it is just as importa...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Fidelity Bank







Sicredi






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
Fidelity Bank has 42.2% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Sicredi in 2026.
Incident History - Fidelity Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fidelity Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Sicredi (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Sicredi cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Fidelity Bank

Sicredi
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.