Comparison Overview

Merrco by KORT Payments

VS

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

Merrco by KORT Payments

179 John Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T1X4, CA
Last Update: 2025-03-08 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900
https://merrco.com

Strong

Merrco Payments is a leading provider of specialized payments solutions in the growing cannabis industry. Our goal is to empower businesses with seamless, secure, and compliant cannabis payment processing services. We understand the unique challenges faced by the cannabis market and have designed our cutting-edge solutions to cater specifically to this industry. Our offerings include: Credit and Debit Card Processing: Offer your customers the convenience and flexibility of card payments, both online and in-store, with our fully compliant and secure card processing services tailored for cannabis businesses. Online Payments: Enhance your customers' shopping experience with our secure and user-friendly online payment systems, designed to facilitate seamless transactions in the cannabis e-commerce space. Cannabis Software Integrations: Reach new customers with our integrated cannabis payments platform, offering API-driven technology, quick and easy integration, omnichannel solutions, real-time reporting. Cannabis Point of Sale (POS): Simplify your in-store transactions with our advanced POS terminals, equipped with features that meet the daily demand across retail environments. At Merrco Payments, we prioritize customer success and are committed to providing unparalleled support, ensuring your business thrives in the competitive cannabis market. Our team of experts is dedicated to staying ahead of industry trends and regulatory changes, allowing us to deliver reliable and innovative payment solutions for our valued clients. Partner with Merrco Payments today and experience the difference of working with a trusted leader in the cannabis payment processing and fintech industry.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 21
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

None
Last Update: 2025-06-03 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900
https://www.psbc.com/cn/

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. also known as PSBC is a commercial retail bank founded in 2007 and headquartered in Beijing. It provides basic financial services, especially to small and medium enterprises, rural[1] and low income customers. As of December 31, 2017, PSBC has 39,798[2] branches covering all regions of China. PSBC was set up with an initial capital of RMB20 billion in 2007 from the State Post Bureau. Today it has RMB1.5 trillion in deposits and the second largest number of branches, after the Agricultural Bank of China. During the Global Financial Crisis, the government took several measures to spread its national economic stimulus plan specifically to rural areas. This included using microfinance services provided by the Postal Savings Bank as a tool for national development and poverty reduction. The bank with its extremely broad reach also assists Chinaโ€™s credit cooperatives in their microcredit schemes. On December 8, 2015, China Postal Savings Bank, through issuing pro-float stock, received an injection of investment from the Temasek Holdings of Singapore, UBS, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the International Finance Corporation, Morgan Stanley, DBS Bank, Tencent, Ant Financial Services Group, China Life and China Telecom, with a total investment of 45.1 billion yuan. These "strategic investors" together held a 16.92% stake in the company at the time of purchase. The stock was listed through an initial public offering on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong on September 30, 2016. Prior to its listing, it was the largest unlisted Chinese bank.[3] Xuewen Zhang and Hong Lao serve as Vice Presidents of the bank and co-executive directors.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 36
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/merrco.jpeg
Merrco by KORT Payments
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-๏ผŒ.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Merrco by KORT Payments
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Merrco by KORT Payments in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Merrco by KORT Payments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Merrco by KORT Payments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/merrco.jpeg
Merrco by KORT Payments
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-๏ผŒ.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Merrco by KORT Payments company and Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Merrco by KORT Payments company.

In the current year, Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company and Merrco by KORT Payments company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Merrco by KORT Payments company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Merrco by KORT Payments company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Merrco by KORT Payments company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Merrco by KORT Payments company nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Merrco by KORT Payments company nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company employs more people globally than Merrco by KORT Payments company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in LaChatterie Verger up to 1.2.10. This impacts the function redirectToAuthorization of the file /src/main/services/mcp/oauth/provider.ts. The manipulation of the argument URL results in deserialization. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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

A vulnerability has been found in SeriaWei ZKEACMS up to 4.3. This affects the function Delete of the file src/ZKEACMS.Redirection/Controllers/UrlRedirectionController.cs of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation leads to improper authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jfs: fix invalid free of JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap in diUnmount syzbot found an invalid-free in diUnmount: BUG: KASAN: double-free in slab_free mm/slub.c:3661 [inline] BUG: KASAN: double-free in __kmem_cache_free+0x71/0x110 mm/slub.c:3674 Free of addr ffff88806f410000 by task syz-executor131/3632 CPU: 0 PID: 3632 Comm: syz-executor131 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc7-syzkaller-00012-gca57f02295f1 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/26/2022 Call Trace: <TASK> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x1b1/0x28e lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_address_description+0x74/0x340 mm/kasan/report.c:284 print_report+0x107/0x1f0 mm/kasan/report.c:395 kasan_report_invalid_free+0xac/0xd0 mm/kasan/report.c:460 ____kasan_slab_free+0xfb/0x120 kasan_slab_free include/linux/kasan.h:177 [inline] slab_free_hook mm/slub.c:1724 [inline] slab_free_freelist_hook+0x12e/0x1a0 mm/slub.c:1750 slab_free mm/slub.c:3661 [inline] __kmem_cache_free+0x71/0x110 mm/slub.c:3674 diUnmount+0xef/0x100 fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c:195 jfs_umount+0x108/0x370 fs/jfs/jfs_umount.c:63 jfs_put_super+0x86/0x190 fs/jfs/super.c:194 generic_shutdown_super+0x130/0x310 fs/super.c:492 kill_block_super+0x79/0xd0 fs/super.c:1428 deactivate_locked_super+0xa7/0xf0 fs/super.c:332 cleanup_mnt+0x494/0x520 fs/namespace.c:1186 task_work_run+0x243/0x300 kernel/task_work.c:179 exit_task_work include/linux/task_work.h:38 [inline] do_exit+0x664/0x2070 kernel/exit.c:820 do_group_exit+0x1fd/0x2b0 kernel/exit.c:950 __do_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:961 [inline] __se_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:959 [inline] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x3b/0x40 kernel/exit.c:959 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd [...] JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap is not setting to NULL after free in diUnmount. If jfs_remount() free JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap but then failed at diMount(). JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap will be freed once again. Fix this problem by setting JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap to NULL after free.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: qla2xxx: Fix deletion race condition System crash when using debug kernel due to link list corruption. The cause of the link list corruption is due to session deletion was allowed to queue up twice. Here's the internal trace that show the same port was allowed to double queue for deletion on different cpu. 20808683956 015 qla2xxx [0000:13:00.1]-e801:4: Scheduling sess ffff93ebf9306800 for deletion 50:06:0e:80:12:48:ff:50 fc4_type 1 20808683957 027 qla2xxx [0000:13:00.1]-e801:4: Scheduling sess ffff93ebf9306800 for deletion 50:06:0e:80:12:48:ff:50 fc4_type 1 Move the clearing/setting of deleted flag lock.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/ksm: fix race with VMA iteration and mm_struct teardown exit_mmap() will tear down the VMAs and maple tree with the mmap_lock held in write mode. Ensure that the maple tree is still valid by checking ksm_test_exit() after taking the mmap_lock in read mode, but before the for_each_vma() iterator dereferences a destroyed maple tree. Since the maple tree is destroyed, the flags telling lockdep to check an external lock has been cleared. Skip the for_each_vma() iterator to avoid dereferencing a maple tree without the external lock flag, which would create a lockdep warning.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References