Comparison Overview

L&T Finance

VS

Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking

L&T Finance

Plot no. 177, CST Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 098, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

L&T Finance is one of the leading NBFCs offering a range of loans across Rural | Housing | Two-Wheeler | Personal & Business (SME) The company is promoted by Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (L&T), one of the largest conglomerates in India. LTF is publicly listed on both the exchanges of India - BSE & NSE and complies to the guidelines applicable to an NBFC- CIC. Headquartered in Mumbai, the company has been rated AAA, the highest credit rating for NBFCs by four leading rating agencies.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 15,839
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking

47 quai d’Austerlitz 75013 Paris, Paris, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking is a leading global financial institution that provides advisory, investment banking, financing, corporate banking and capital markets services to corporations, financial institutions, financial sponsors and sovereign and supranational organizations worldwide. Our teams of experts in around 30 countries advise clients on their strategic development, helping them to grow and transform their businesses, and maximize their positive impact. Natixis CIB is committed to aligning its financing portfolio with a carbon neutrality path by 2050 while helping its clients reduce the environmental impact of their business. As part of Groupe BPCE, the second largest banking group in France through the Banque Populaire and Caisse d’Epargne retail networks, Natixis CIB benefits from the Group’s financial strength and solid financial ratings (Standard & Poor's: A, Moody's: A1, Fitch Ratings: A+, R&I: A+).

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 15,143
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/l&t-finance.jpeg
L&T Finance
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/natixis-corporate-investment-banking.jpeg
Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking
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
L&T Finance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for L&T Finance in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking in 2026.

Incident History — L&T Finance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L&T Finance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/l&t-finance.jpeg
L&T Finance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/natixis-corporate-investment-banking.jpeg
Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

L&T Finance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to L&T Finance company.

In the current year, Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company and L&T Finance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company nor L&T Finance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company nor L&T Finance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company nor L&T Finance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither L&T Finance company nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to L&T Finance company.

L&T Finance company employs more people globally than Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking holds HIPAA certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking 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