Comparison Overview

Old Mutual

VS

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

Old Mutual

107 Rivonia Rd, Johannesburg, Gauteng, undefined, ZA
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Old Mutual Limited is a listed company on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and has secondary listings on the London, Malawi, Namibia and Zimbabwe stock exchanges. As a Pan-African financial services company, we are focused on Africa, her needs and her people. Together with you, we have educated our children, given more homes warmth and light, empowered small businesses and improved infrastructure in Africa. Our story will continue #WithAfricaForAfrica.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 12,699
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

None
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

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 China’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/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
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/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-,.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
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
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 Old Mutual 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 — Old Mutual (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — 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/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Old Mutual company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Old Mutual company.

In the current year, Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company and Old Mutual company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Old Mutual company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Old Mutual company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Old Mutual company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Old Mutual company nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Old Mutual company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company.

Old Mutual company employs more people globally than Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Old Mutual nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. 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.

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
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

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
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."

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
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.

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
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).

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