Comparison Overview

HBL

VS

Crédit Agricole CIB

HBL

HBL Plaza, I I Chundigar Rd., Karachi, PK
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

HBL, Pakistan’s leading Bank, was the first commercial Bank to be established in Pakistan in 1947. Over the years, HBL has grown its branch network and maintained its position as the largest private sector Bank in Pakistan with over 1,728+ branches and 2,300+ ATMs globally, serving 37million+ clients worldwide. HBL will never ask for customer's personal data on public platforms. Please avoid sharing such data via social media.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 21,194
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Crédit Agricole CIB

12, place des Etats-Unis, Montrouge, 92547, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Crédit Agricole CIB is the corporate and investment banking arm of Crédit Agricole Group, 9th largest banking group worldwide in terms of balance sheet size in 2023 (The Banker, July 2024). Nearly 8,600 employees across Europe, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa support Crédit Agricole CIB's clients, meeting their financial needs throughout the world. Crédit Agricole CIB offers its large corporate and institutional clients a range of products and services in capital markets activities, investment banking, structured finance, commercial banking and international trade. The Bank is a pioneer in the area of climate finance, and is currently a market leader in this segment with a complete offer for all its clients.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 14,195
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/hblofficial.jpeg
HBL
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/credit-agricole-cib.jpeg
Crédit Agricole CIB
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
HBL
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Crédit Agricole CIB
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HBL in 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Crédit Agricole CIB in 2026.

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

HBL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Crédit Agricole CIB (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Crédit Agricole CIB cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hblofficial.jpeg
HBL
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: ATM Skimming
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/credit-agricole-cib.jpeg
Crédit Agricole CIB
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Crédit Agricole CIB company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to HBL company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

HBL company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Crédit Agricole CIB company has not reported any.

In the current year, Crédit Agricole CIB company and HBL company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Crédit Agricole CIB company nor HBL company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

HBL company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Crédit Agricole CIB company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Crédit Agricole CIB company nor HBL company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither HBL company nor Crédit Agricole CIB company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither HBL company nor Crédit Agricole CIB company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

HBL company employs more people globally than Crédit Agricole CIB company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HBL nor Crédit Agricole CIB 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