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

Comparison Overview

Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控
VS
Banco de Crédito BCPBanco de Crédito BCP
Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控

Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控

No.237, Sec. 1, Jianguo S. Rd., Da’an Dist.,, Taipei City, 10657, TW

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile

以「成為亞洲一流的金融機構」為發展願景的富邦金控,旗下主要子公司包括富邦人壽、台北富邦銀行、富邦銀行(香港)、富邦華一銀行、富邦產險、富邦證券及富邦投信等,擁有最完整多元的金融產品與服務,經營績效耀眼,位居市場領導地位。富邦金控深耕台灣逾60年,以「正向力量 成就可能™」為品牌理念,致力以正向的力量及全方位的金融服務,支持人們追尋美好未來。 截至2025年6月底,富邦金控總資產達11兆9,021億元,為台灣總資產第二大、市值第一大金融控股公司,2025年上半年稅後淨利為513.84億元,每股盈餘(EPS) 3.49元。富邦金控已連續...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:2,494
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Banco de Crédito BCP

Banco de Crédito BCP

Calle Centenario 156, La Molina, Lima 12, PE

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
799/1000Fair

Somos el banco peruano que desde hace más de 130 años viene liderando el sistema financiero a nivel nacional. A lo largo de todo este tiempo hemos contribuido con el desarrollo económico de nuestro país, transformando planes en realidad. Todo esto es posible gracias a...

NAICS:52211
NAICS Definition:Commercial Banking
Employees:23,773
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控

Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控

-
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
Banco de Crédito BCP

Banco de Crédito BCP

-
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 Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco de Crédito BCP in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 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 - Banco de Crédito BCP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banco de Crédito BCP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控

Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Banco de Crédito BCP

Banco de Crédito BCP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 company and Banco de Crédito BCP company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 and Banco de Crédito BCP, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 and Banco de Crédito BCP, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 or Banco de Crédito BCP ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 or Banco de Crédito BCP ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 and Banco de Crédito BCP, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd. 富邦金控 and Banco de Crédito BCP, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8