Comparison Overview

Franklin Templeton

VS

M&T Bank

Franklin Templeton

1 Franklin Pkwy, San Mateo, 94403, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Franklin Resources, Inc. [NYSE:BEN] is a global investment management organization with subsidiaries operating as Franklin Templeton (www.franklinresources.com). The products, services, information and materials referenced in this site may not be available to residents in certain jurisdictions. Consult with an investment professional or contact your local Franklin Templeton office for more information. This site and the information contained herein is not intended to constitute an offer to sell or an invitation or solicitation of an offer to buy any product or service by Franklin Templeton. Nothing in this website should be construed as investment, tax, legal or other advice. All investments involve risks, including potential loss of principal. LinkedIn is owned by a third party unaffiliated with us. We are not responsible for LinkedIn’s privacy, security, or terms of use policies that control this service, nor their content, software, or tools (or those of any third party’s) that are available through links from this page. You use any third-party site/media, software and materials at your own risk. US readers: View our Terms and Conditions at: https://www.franklinresources.com/resources/social ©Franklin Templeton. All rights reserved.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 12,033
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

M&T Bank

345 Main St., Buffalo, New York, 14203, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the diverse communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footprint across the east coast and wealth services available nationwide and abroad. As a bank, we offer advice, guidance, expertise, and solutions across the entire financial spectrum that combines M&T’s traditional banking services with the wealth management and institutional capabilities offered by Wilmington Trust. We are a community-minded organization with more than 167 years of experience. We serve customers, community, and colleagues whether they be across the street, across the state or across the country. As an employer of choice, we are proud to offer competitive benefits ranging from medical and retirement to forty hours of paid volunteer time, each year. Our core values drive the work we do – integrity, ownership, collaboration, curiosity, candor and we seek to further build upon our record of success by bringing in diverse talents and fresh skill sets while continuing to support the growth and development of all our team members. M&T Bank Corporation is an Equal Opportunity Employer, including disabilities and veterans.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 28,729
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/franklin-templeton.jpeg
Franklin Templeton
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/m&t-bank.jpeg
M&T Bank
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
Franklin Templeton
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
M&T Bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Franklin Templeton in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for M&T Bank in 2026.

Incident History — Franklin Templeton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Franklin Templeton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M&T Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/franklin-templeton.jpeg
Franklin Templeton
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/m&t-bank.jpeg
M&T Bank
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Franklin Templeton company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to M&T Bank company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, M&T Bank company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Franklin Templeton company.

In the current year, M&T Bank company and Franklin Templeton company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither M&T Bank company nor Franklin Templeton company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither M&T Bank company nor Franklin Templeton company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither M&T Bank company nor Franklin Templeton company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Franklin Templeton company nor M&T Bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

M&T Bank company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Franklin Templeton company.

M&T Bank company employs more people globally than Franklin Templeton company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Franklin Templeton nor M&T Bank 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