Comparison Overview

LCL

VS

Citizens

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

Citizens

1 Citizens Plaza, None, Providence, Rhode Island, US, 02903
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 700 and 749
http://www.citizensbank.com

At Citizens, we recognize that the journey to accomplishment is no longer linear and that individuals are made of all they have done and all they are going to do. As one of the oldest and largest financial services firms in the United States with a history dating back to 1828, we’re committed to providing solutions and expertise that support our customers, clients, colleagues, and communities in what’s next on their own unique journey. Whether you’re considering banking with us or looking to work with us, you’ll find a customer-centric culture and a supportive, collaborative workforce at Citizens. You’re made ready and so are we. #MadeReady

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 22,674
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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/citizens-bank.jpeg
Citizens
—
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
Citizens
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 Citizens in 2025.

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

LCL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Citizens 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/citizens-bank.jpeg
Citizens
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Citizens company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas LCL company has not reported any.

In the current year, Citizens company and LCL company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Citizens company nor LCL company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Citizens company has disclosed at least one data breach, while LCL company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Citizens company nor LCL company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LCL company nor Citizens company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LCL nor Citizens holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LCL company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Citizens company.

Citizens company employs more people globally than LCL company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither LCL nor Citizens holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LCL nor Citizens holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LCL nor Citizens holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LCL nor Citizens holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LCL nor Citizens holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LCL nor Citizens 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