Comparison Overview

Fidelity Investments

VS

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

Fidelity Investments

245 Summer St, Boston, MA, US, 02210
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fidelity.com

Fidelity’s mission is to strengthen the financial well-being of our customers and deliver better outcomes for the clients and businesses we serve. Fidelity’s strength comes from the scale of our diversified, market-leading financial services businesses that serve individuals, families, employers, wealth management firms, and institutions. With assets under administration of $15.0 trillion, including discretionary assets of $5.9 trillion as of March 31, 2025, we focus on meeting the unique needs of a broad and growing customer base. Privately held for 78 years, Fidelity employs more than 77,000 associates across the United States, Ireland, and India. For our Terms and Conditions, please visit http://go.fidelity.com/LIterms

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 84,396
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
View Profile

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

None
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 800 and 849
https://www.psbc.com/cn/

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. also known as PSBC is a commercial retail bank founded in 2007 and headquartered in Beijing. It provides basic financial services, especially to small and medium enterprises, rural[1] and low income customers. As of December 31, 2017, PSBC has 39,798[2] branches covering all regions of China. PSBC was set up with an initial capital of RMB20 billion in 2007 from the State Post Bureau. Today it has RMB1.5 trillion in deposits and the second largest number of branches, after the Agricultural Bank of China. During the Global Financial Crisis, the government took several measures to spread its national economic stimulus plan specifically to rural areas. This included using microfinance services provided by the Postal Savings Bank as a tool for national development and poverty reduction. The bank with its extremely broad reach also assists China’s credit cooperatives in their microcredit schemes. On December 8, 2015, China Postal Savings Bank, through issuing pro-float stock, received an injection of investment from the Temasek Holdings of Singapore, UBS, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the International Finance Corporation, Morgan Stanley, DBS Bank, Tencent, Ant Financial Services Group, China Life and China Telecom, with a total investment of 45.1 billion yuan. These "strategic investors" together held a 16.92% stake in the company at the time of purchase. The stock was listed through an initial public offering on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong on September 30, 2016. Prior to its listing, it was the largest unlisted Chinese bank.[3] Xuewen Zhang and Hong Lao serve as Vice Presidents of the bank and co-executive directors.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 47
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fidelity-investments.jpeg
Fidelity Investments
—
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/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-，.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
—
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
Fidelity Investments
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fidelity Investments in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. in 2026.

Incident History — Fidelity Investments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fidelity Investments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fidelity-investments.jpeg
Fidelity Investments
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Third-party software vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2014
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-，.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Fidelity Investments company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Fidelity Investments company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company and Fidelity Investments company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Fidelity Investments company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Fidelity Investments company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Fidelity Investments company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Fidelity Investments company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fidelity Investments company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company.

Fidelity Investments company employs more people globally than Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fidelity Investments nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

SummaryA command injection vulnerability (CWE-78) has been found to exist in the `wrangler pages deploy` command. The issue occurs because the `--commit-hash` parameter is passed directly to a shell command without proper validation or sanitization, allowing an attacker with control of `--commit-hash` to execute arbitrary commands on the system running Wrangler. Root causeThe commitHash variable, derived from user input via the --commit-hash CLI argument, is interpolated directly into a shell command using template literals (e.g.,  execSync(`git show -s --format=%B ${commitHash}`)). Shell metacharacters are interpreted by the shell, enabling command execution. ImpactThis vulnerability is generally hard to exploit, as it requires --commit-hash to be attacker controlled. The vulnerability primarily affects CI/CD environments where `wrangler pages deploy` is used in automated pipelines and the --commit-hash parameter is populated from external, potentially untrusted sources. An attacker could exploit this to: * Run any shell command. * Exfiltrate environment variables. * Compromise the CI runner to install backdoors or modify build artifacts. Credits Disclosed responsibly by kny4hacker. Mitigation * Wrangler v4 users are requested to upgrade to Wrangler v4.59.1 or higher. * Wrangler v3 users are requested to upgrade to Wrangler v3.114.17 or higher. * Users on Wrangler v2 (EOL) should upgrade to a supported major version.

Published
Date
2026-01-20
Updated
Date
2026-01-20
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/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
References
Description

Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox product of Oracle Virtualization (component: Core). Supported versions that are affected are 7.1.14 and 7.2.4. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. While the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.2 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).

Published
Date
2026-01-20
Updated
Date
2026-01-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox product of Oracle Virtualization (component: Core). Supported versions that are affected are 7.1.14 and 7.2.4. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. While the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized creation, deletion or modification access to critical data or all Oracle VM VirtualBox accessible data as well as unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Oracle VM VirtualBox accessible data and unauthorized ability to cause a partial denial of service (partial DOS) of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.1 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L).

Published
Date
2026-01-20
Updated
Date
2026-01-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
References
Description

Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox product of Oracle Virtualization (component: Core). Supported versions that are affected are 7.1.14 and 7.2.4. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. While the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.2 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).

Published
Date
2026-01-20
Updated
Date
2026-01-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox product of Oracle Virtualization (component: Core). Supported versions that are affected are 7.1.14 and 7.2.4. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows high privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. While the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.2 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).

Published
Date
2026-01-20
Updated
Date
2026-01-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References