Comparison Overview

LCL

VS

Rabobank

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

Rabobank

Croeselaan 18, Utrecht, Utrecht, NL, 3521CB
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rabobank.com

Rabobank is a cooperative bank with a mission. Our goal: to help customers realize their ambitions. We serve about 10 million customers in 47 countries. As an international financial institution, we work on the well-being and prosperity of millions of people. In the Netherlands, we serve individual and business customers. Globally, we focus on the food and agriculture sectors. For big or small challenges, in every area, people join forces in search of solutions. Rabobank has been doing this for 125 years, and we will continue to grow a better world together. As an employer, we support the growth of colleagues every day. At Rabobank, you can work on your own development & shape the world around you. This is reflected in your own development budget, our hybrid work environment, and a good balance between your work and home life. You can work on banking matters for our individual and business customers, as well as on societal issues such as food and energy transitions.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 34,498
Subsidiaries: 13
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/rabobank.jpeg
Rabobank
—
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
Rabobank
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 Rabobank in 2025.

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

LCL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Rabobank 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/rabobank.jpeg
Rabobank
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither LCL nor Rabobank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LCL company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Rabobank company.

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

Neither LCL nor Rabobank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LCL nor Rabobank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LCL nor Rabobank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LCL nor Rabobank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LCL nor Rabobank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LCL nor Rabobank 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