Comparison Overview

LPL Financial

VS

BNY

LPL Financial

4707 Executive Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92121-1968
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lpl.com/

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports over 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,100 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.9 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 7 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 14,111
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1
View Profile

BNY

240 Greenwich St, New York, NY, 10286, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
https://www.bny.com

We help make money work for the world — managing it, moving it and keeping it safe. As a leading global financial services company at the center of the world’s financial system, we touch nearly 20% of the world’s investable assets. Today we help over 90% of Fortune 100 companies and nearly all the top 100 banks globally access the money they need. For more than 240 years we have partnered alongside our clients to create solutions that benefit businesses, communities and people everywhere. Follow BNY on Instagram & X: @BNYglobal

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 55,698
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
—
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/bny-mellon.jpeg
BNY
—
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
LPL Financial
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BNY
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LPL Financial in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BNY in 2025.

Incident History — LPL Financial (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LPL Financial cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

BNY cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lpl-financial.jpeg
LPL Financial
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Email Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft of Employee's Desktop Computer
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bny-mellon.jpeg
BNY
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

LPL Financial company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas BNY company has not reported any.

In the current year, BNY company and LPL Financial company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BNY company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

LPL Financial company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other BNY company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither BNY company nor LPL Financial company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LPL Financial company nor BNY company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BNY company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LPL Financial company.

BNY company employs more people globally than LPL Financial company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LPL Financial nor BNY 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