Comparison Overview

LCL

VS

Banco de Chile

LCL

20, Avenue de Paris, VILLEJUIF, Île-de-France, FR, 94800
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lcl.fr/

Depuis son rapprochement avec le Groupe Crédit Agricole SA en 2003, le périmètre d'activités de LCL, réseau national de banque de détail, est axé sur le marché des particuliers, des professionnels, des entreprises et la Banque privée. LCL est une banque de proximité qui compte 2 065 implantations et 20 900 collaborateurs au service de 6 000 000 de clients particuliers, 320 000 clients professionnels et 27 000 clients entreprises et institutionnels.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 15,988
Subsidiaries: 46
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Banco de Chile

Ahumada 251, Santiago, Santiago, 8320206, CL
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bancochile.cl

Somos una Corporación líder y comprometida con el país que brinda servicios financieros de excelencia a cada segmento de clientes. Buscamos permanentemente ser el mejor Banco para ellos, ser el mejor lugar para trabajar y ser la mejor inversión para nuestros accionistas. Lo hacemos de forma colaborativa y comprometida con las personas que conforman nuestra organización y con el desarrollo de la comunidad.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,812
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/lcl.jpeg
LCL
—
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/banco-de-chile.jpeg
Banco de Chile
—
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
LCL
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Banco de Chile
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LCL in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banco de Chile in 2025.

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

LCL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Banco de Chile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banco de Chile cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lcl.jpeg
LCL
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/banco-de-chile.jpeg
Banco de Chile
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Banco de Chile company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LCL company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Banco de Chile company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to LCL company.

In the current year, Banco de Chile company and LCL company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Banco de Chile company nor LCL company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Banco de Chile company nor LCL company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Banco de Chile company nor LCL company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LCL company nor Banco de Chile company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LCL company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Banco de Chile company.

LCL company employs more people globally than Banco de Chile company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LCL nor Banco de Chile holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References