Comparison Overview

Garanti BBVA

VS

ANZ

Garanti BBVA

Nisbetiye Mh., Aytar Caddesi No:2 Zincirlikuyu, Istanbul, undefined, Istanbul, TR
Last Update: 2026-01-17

With a digitalization and people oriented vision, we contribute to our economy and society. We make great efforts to help you make the best financial decisions by offering you the opportunities of the future with our dynamic business model, pioneering technology and innovative products and services. In 2010, we joined BBVA Group, one of the world's leading digital banks with a 160-year-long history, 75 million customers and 125,749 employees. And as of June 2019, we now operate under the “Garanti BBVA” brand. By joining forces with the world’s leading technology bank as the leading technology bank in Turkey, we aim to provide you with more opportunities. We are working with the understanding that ‘we are one team’ and we base our operations on ‘clear, transparent and responsible banking’ with nearly 20,000 employees to provide the most advanced banking solutions to more than 16 million customers and to excel in the experience we deliver. If you want to learn more about life at Garanti BBVA, including our talent and culture initiatives that enable employee development, you can check out our “Life” tab. The Future’s Opportunities With You.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 14,892
Subsidiaries: 23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

ANZ

833 Collins Street, Docklands, Melbourne, Victoria, AU, 3008
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 800 and 849

ANZ has a proud heritage of more than 180 years. Our purpose is to shape a world where people and communities thrive. That is why we strive to create a balanced, sustainable economy in which everyone can take part and build a better life. We employ more than 50,000 people and have our global headquarters in Melbourne. ANZ is among the top 4 banks in Australia, the largest banking group in New Zealand and Pacific, and among the top 50 banks in the world. Follow us elsewhere for our latest news: facebook.com/ANZAustralia facebook.com/ANZNewZealand twitter.com/ANZ_AU twitter.com/ANZ_NZ twitter.com/ANZ_Media twitter.com/ANZ_BlueNotes twitter.com/ANZ_Research instagram.com/anz_au bluenotes.anz.com

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 51,206
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/garanti-bbva.jpeg
Garanti BBVA
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/anz.jpeg
ANZ
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
Garanti BBVA
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ANZ
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Garanti BBVA in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ANZ in 2026.

Incident History — Garanti BBVA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Garanti BBVA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — ANZ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ANZ cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/garanti-bbva.jpeg
Garanti BBVA
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/anz.jpeg
ANZ
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

ANZ company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Garanti BBVA company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, ANZ company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Garanti BBVA company.

In the current year, ANZ company and Garanti BBVA company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither ANZ company nor Garanti BBVA company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither ANZ company nor Garanti BBVA company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither ANZ company nor Garanti BBVA company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Garanti BBVA company nor ANZ company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Garanti BBVA company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to ANZ company.

ANZ company employs more people globally than Garanti BBVA company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Garanti BBVA nor ANZ 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