Comparison Overview

IIFL (India Infoline Group)

VS

Charles Schwab

IIFL (India Infoline Group)

B Wing, Trade Centre, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Off Senapati Bapat Marg,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400013
Last Update: 2026-01-18

IIFL group is one of India's largest diversified financial services conglomerates with three listed entities - IIFL Finance, IIFL Securities and 360 ONE Wealth & Asset Management. Founded in 1995 by Nirmal Jain as a small research house, today IIFL Group employs over 40000 people and caters to over 10 million customers through various financial products and services. Our strength has been to continuously innovate and reinvent ourselves. IIFL’s evolution from an entrepreneurial start-up in 1995 to a full range diversified financial services group is a story of steady growth by adapting to the dynamic business environment, without losing focus on our core domain of financial services. Today IIFL Group manages assets over $50 billion and is present across Asia, Europe and the US. IIFL Group's companies are backed by marquee investors like Fairfax, Bain Capital, The Capital Group and WardFerry among others.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,747
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Charles Schwab

3000 Schwab Way, Westlake, 76262, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Charles Schwab is a different kind of investment services firm – one that strives to disrupt the status quo of the traditional Wall Street approach on behalf of our clients. We believe today, as we did on Day 1, that when you find ways to improve the investing experience for your clients, then business results will follow. Follow our company culture at #SchwabLife and see how we give back at #Schwab4Good. Support hours: 7 a.m.–7 p.m. CT or 24/7 at schwab.com/contact-us. Social Media Disclosures: https://www.aboutschwab.com/social-media (#0424-TM8W)

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 33,811
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/iifl.jpeg
IIFL (India Infoline Group)
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/charles-schwab.jpeg
Charles Schwab
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
IIFL (India Infoline Group)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Charles Schwab
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IIFL (India Infoline Group) in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Charles Schwab in 2026.

Incident History — IIFL (India Infoline Group) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IIFL (India Infoline Group) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Charles Schwab (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Charles Schwab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/iifl.jpeg
IIFL (India Infoline Group)
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/charles-schwab.jpeg
Charles Schwab
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: SMS Phishing (Smishing), Mobile Phishing Kits (Telegram-distributed), Spoofed Brokerage Alerts (iMessage/RCS), One-Time Passcode (OTP) Interception, Compromised Mobile Wallets (Apple/Google Pay), Coordinated Trading via Hijacked Accounts
Motivation: Financial Gain (Stock Price Manipulation), Fraudulent E-Commerce/Tap-to-Pay Transactions, Sale of Compromised Accounts/Devices on Dark Web, Exploitation of Cross-Border Regulatory Gaps
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Wrongdoing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Charles Schwab company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to IIFL (India Infoline Group) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Charles Schwab company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas IIFL (India Infoline Group) company has not reported any.

In the current year, Charles Schwab company and IIFL (India Infoline Group) company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Charles Schwab company nor IIFL (India Infoline Group) company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Charles Schwab company has disclosed at least one data breach, while IIFL (India Infoline Group) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Charles Schwab company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while IIFL (India Infoline Group) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) company nor Charles Schwab company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Charles Schwab company and IIFL (India Infoline Group) company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

Charles Schwab company employs more people globally than IIFL (India Infoline Group) company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab holds HIPAA certification.

Neither IIFL (India Infoline Group) nor Charles Schwab 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