Comparison Overview

Block

VS

PING AN

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

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518046, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services and healthcare in the future will be through intelligent ecosystems enabled by technology. With over 220 million retail customers and nearly 611 million Internet users, Ping An is one of the largest financial services companies in the world. Technology has enabled us to bring changes to the landscape of retail finance and healthcare in China. Supported by the Group’s strong core financials, our continued investment in fintech and healthtech resulted in increasing revenue contributions from our tech units as well as several unicorns. Ping An ranked 6th in the Forbes Global 2000 list and 16th in the Fortune Global 500 list in 2021. Follow us for latest news, events and job opportunities.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 51,385
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/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/ping-an.jpeg
PING AN
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
PING AN
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 PING AN in 2025.

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

Block cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN 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/ping-an.jpeg
PING AN
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

PING AN 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 PING AN company has not reported any.

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

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

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

Neither PING AN company nor Block company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither Block nor PING AN holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Block company nor PING AN company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

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

Neither Block nor PING AN holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Block nor PING AN holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Block nor PING AN holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Block nor PING AN holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Block nor PING AN holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Block nor PING AN 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