Comparison Overview

Old Mutual South Africa

VS

PING AN

Old Mutual South Africa

107 Rivonia Road, Sandton, Gauteng, 2196, ZA
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Old Mutual Limited is a premium pan-African financial services group that offers a broad spectrum of financial solutions to retail and corporate customers across key markets in 14 countries. We have been helping our customers achieve their lifetime financial goals for over 170 years by investing their funds in ways that create positive futures for them, their families, their communities and broader society. In this way, we significantly contribute to improving the lives of our customers and their communities while ensuring a sustainable future for our business. We employ more than 30 000 people and operate in 14 countries across two regions Africa (South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan and eSwatini) as well as Asia (China) So why work here? We believe you can shape the future with us – a future where we build a better Africa together. That’s why we’re committed to creating opportunities that will give you an edge on the rest. Once you’re part of our team, you will have access to the best breed of advice, tools and frameworks that will equip you to be your exceptional best. #MomentsThatMatter

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 16,654
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

PING AN

No. 5033 Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518046, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

This is the official Company Page of Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. (HKEx: 2318; SSE: 601318; ADR: PNGAY). Ping An strives to become a world leading technology-powered financial services group. We believe the way people receive financial services and healthcare in the future will be through intelligent ecosystems enabled by technology. With over 220 million retail customers and nearly 611 million Internet users, Ping An is one of the largest financial services companies in the world. Technology has enabled us to bring changes to the landscape of retail finance and healthcare in China. Supported by the Group’s strong core financials, our continued investment in fintech and healthtech resulted in increasing revenue contributions from our tech units as well as several unicorns. Ping An ranked 6th in the Forbes Global 2000 list and 16th in the Fortune Global 500 list in 2021. Follow us for latest news, events and job opportunities.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 51,385
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/old-mutual-south-africa.jpeg
Old Mutual South Africa
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/ping-an.jpeg
PING AN
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
Old Mutual South Africa
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
PING AN
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual South Africa in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PING AN in 2025.

Incident History — Old Mutual South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual South Africa cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — PING AN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PING AN cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/old-mutual-south-africa.jpeg
Old Mutual South Africa
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ping-an.jpeg
PING AN
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

PING AN company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Old Mutual South Africa company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, PING AN company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Old Mutual South Africa company.

In the current year, PING AN company and Old Mutual South Africa company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither PING AN company nor Old Mutual South Africa company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither PING AN company nor Old Mutual South Africa company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither PING AN company nor Old Mutual South Africa company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa company nor PING AN company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa company nor PING AN company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

PING AN company employs more people globally than Old Mutual South Africa company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Old Mutual South Africa nor PING AN holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H