Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Koc Finansman A.S.Koc Finansman A.S.
VS
M&T BankM&T Bank
Koc Finansman A.S.

Koc Finansman A.S.

Ünalan Mahallesi Ayazma Cd. Koç Çamlıca İş Merkezi, A Blok no:131 İç Kapı No:4 34700 Üsküdar / İSTANBUL, istanbul, None, TR, 34700

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
757/1000Fair

As Turkey’s first financial services company, Koçfinans offers individual and corporate financing solutions with an innovative, technology-driven approach and a network of over 1,000 contracted sales points. With its broad range of products, flexible payment options, an...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:238
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

345 Main St., Buffalo, 14203, US

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.mtb.com
669/1000Weak

Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footpr...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:30,274
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Koc Finansman A.S.

Koc Finansman A.S.

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Koc Finansman A.S. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

M&T Bank has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Koc Finansman A.S. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Koc Finansman A.S. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M&T Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Koc Finansman A.S.

Koc Finansman A.S.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
M&T Bank

M&T Bank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TTHI1776869694
🔒 Incident : Breach
M&TLAW1776869766

FAQ

Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. company and M&T Bank company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. and M&T Bank, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. and M&T Bank, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Koc Finansman A.S. or M&T Bank ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Koc Finansman A.S. or M&T Bank ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. and M&T Bank, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Koc Finansman A.S. and M&T Bank, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA