Comparison Overview

L&T Finance

VS

Global Payments Inc.

L&T Finance

Plot no. 177, CST Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 098, IN
Last Update: 2025-11-20
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

Global Payments Inc.

None, None, Atlanta, Georgia, US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Global Payments (NYSE : GPN) helps businesses around the world enable commerce and provide exceptional experiences to their customers. Our payment technology and software solutions enable merchants and developers to deliver seamless customer experiences, run smarter operations and adapt quickly to change. Because if it has anything to do with commerce, we are already on it. With 27,000 team members across 38 countries, we have the scale and expertise to help businesses grow with confidence. Headquartered in Georgia, Global Payments is a Fortune 500® company and a member of the S&P 500. Learn more at company.globalpayments.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and X.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 24,185
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

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/global-payments.jpeg
Global Payments Inc.
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
Global Payments Inc.
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 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Global Payments Inc. in 2025.

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

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

Incident History — Global Payments Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Global Payments Inc. 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/global-payments.jpeg
Global Payments Inc.
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2012
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

L&T Finance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Global Payments Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Global Payments Inc. company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas L&T Finance company has not reported any.

In the current year, Global Payments Inc. company and L&T Finance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Global Payments Inc. company nor L&T Finance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Global Payments Inc. company has disclosed at least one data breach, while L&T Finance company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Global Payments Inc. company nor L&T Finance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither L&T Finance company nor Global Payments Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Global Payments Inc. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to L&T Finance company.

Global Payments Inc. company employs more people globally than L&T Finance company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither L&T Finance nor Global Payments Inc. 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