Comparison Overview

Block

VS

Empower

Block

None, None, Oakland, California, US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 700 and 749

Block is one company built from many blocks, all united by the same purpose of economic empowerment. The blocks that form our foundational teams — People, Finance, Counsel, Hardware, Information Security, Platform Infrastructure Engineering, and more — provide support and guidance at the corporate level. They work across business groups and around the globe, spanning time zones and disciplines to develop inclusive People policies, forecast finances, give legal counsel, safeguard systems, nurture new initiatives, and more. Every challenge creates possibilities, and we need different perspectives to see them all. Bring yours to Block.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 12,798
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Empower

8515 E. Orchard Road, Greenwood Village, CO, 80111, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Built on a foundation of trust, integrity and promise, we proudly serve over 71,000 outstanding organizations and more than 17 million individuals. ¹ We take great pride in helping people with saving, investing and advice, while providing them with the tools and resources they need to help reach their financial goals. We’re continuing to grow — and innovate — every day. Our mission is to empower financial freedom for all. That mission starts by delivering advice, personalized guidance and critical support. We strive to meet the unique needs of everyone we serve and embrace the opportunity to inspire them along their journey. Disclosures: https://www.empower.com/social-media/. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¹ As of April 1, 2022.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 12,376
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/joinblock.jpeg
Block
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/empower-retirement.jpeg
Empower
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
Block
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Empower
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Block in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Empower in 2025.

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

Block cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Empower cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/joinblock.jpeg
Block
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Threat (former employee)
Motivation: Financial Gain (alleged by shareholders), Unauthorized Data Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/empower-retirement.jpeg
Empower
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Block company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Empower company has not reported any.

In the current year, Empower company and Block company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Empower company nor Block company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Block company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Empower company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Empower company nor Block company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Block company nor Empower company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Block nor Empower holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Empower company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Block company.

Block company employs more people globally than Empower company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Block nor Empower holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Block nor Empower holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Block nor Empower holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Block nor Empower holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Block nor Empower holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Block nor Empower holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H