Comparison Overview

ICE

VS

DNB

ICE

Atlanta, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

ICE (NYSE: ICE) connects people to data, technology and expertise that create opportunity and inspire innovation. For terms of use, visit www.ice.com/privacy-security-center/terms-of-use

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 11,554
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

DNB

Dronning Eufemias gate 30, Oslo, Oslo, 0191, NO
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

We are here. So you can stay ahead. For nearly two hundred years we have acquired and shared knowledge, developed global networks and adapted to modern everyday life. To us, it is important to combine profitability with responsibility. DNB is Norway's largest financial services group and one of the largest in the Nordic region in terms of market capitalisation. The Group offers a full range of financial services, including loans, savings, advisory services, insurance and pension products for retail and corporate customers. DNB’s bank branches in Norway, in-store postal and banking outlets, Post office counters, Internet banking, mobile services and international offices ensure that we are present where our customers are. We are a major operator in a number of industries, for which we also have a Nordic or international strategy. DNB is one of the world’s leading shipping banks and has a strong position in the energy sector, and the fisheries and seafood industry. As an international financial institution we offer a wide range of services from our offices around the globe. At DNB you can find career opportunities in many fields, and with offices in 22 countries we are dependent on employees with different backgrounds and skills - all equally important for DNB's performance.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 11,327
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/icemarkets.jpeg
ICE
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/dnb.jpeg
DNB
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
ICE
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DNB
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ICE in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DNB in 2025.

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

ICE cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

DNB cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/icemarkets.jpeg
ICE
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dnb.jpeg
DNB
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, DNB company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to ICE company.

In the current year, DNB company and ICE company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither DNB company nor ICE company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither DNB company nor ICE company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither DNB company nor ICE company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither ICE company nor DNB company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ICE company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to DNB company.

ICE company employs more people globally than DNB company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ICE nor DNB holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N