Comparison Overview

PT. Pegadaian

VS

BB&T

PT. Pegadaian

Jl. Kramat Raya 162, Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta, ID, 10430
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

PT Pegadaian didirikan di kota Sukabumi, Jawa Barat pada 1 April 1901. Tak hanya bergerak di Industri Gadai, Pegadaian juga memiliki ragam produk dan layanan seperti investasi berbasis emas yang dapat dimiliki oleh masyarakat dengan cara yang mudah, diantaranya Tabungan Emas, Cicil Emas dan Arisan Emas. Sementara untuk produk pembiayaan, Pegadaian menyediakan produk pembiayaan Haji dan Umroh, Kredit Mikro, Kredit Kendaraan hingga KUR Syariah. Tergabung dalam Holding Ultra Mikro pada 2021, Pegadaian bersama BRI dan PNM berkomitmen dalam mendukung UMKM untuk naik kelas. Pegadaian juga merupakan lembaga pembiayaan sosial yang berkomitmen untuk memberdayakan masyarakat melalui layanan keuangan inklusif. Dengan berbagai inovasi layanan dan program sosial, Pegadaian terus berupaya menciptakan dampak positif bagi komunitas dan masyarakat secara luas. Pada Desember 2024, Pegadaian resmi menjadi pelopor usaha Bulion dengan mengantongi izin yang dikeluarkan oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK), melalui surat Persetujuan Penyelenggaraan Kegiatan Usaha Bulion PT Pegadaian. Melalui surat tersebut, Pegadaian dapat melakukan kegiatan usaha Layanan Bank Emas Pegadaian yang meliputi Deposito Emas, Pinjaman Modal Kerja Emas, Jasa Titipan Emas Korporasi maupun Perdagangan Emas. Produk dan layanan Pegadaian dapat diakses baik secara konvensional maupun digital melalui aplikasi Pegadaian Digital yang dapat di unduh melalui AppStore maupun PlayStore. Untuk informasi lebih lanjut kunjungi www.pegadaian.co.id

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 11,915
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

BB&T

214 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC, undefined, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

We’d love to stay connected with you! Please follow our Truist company page and unfollow this page which is no longer active. BB&T and SunTrust formed Truist with a shared purpose—to inspire and build better lives and communities. With our combined resources, collective passion, and commitment to innovation, we’re creating a better financial experience to help people and businesses achieve more. With 275 years of combined BB&T and SunTrust history, Truist serves approximately 12 million households with leading market share in many high growth markets in the country. The company offers a wide range of services including retail, small business and commercial banking; asset management; capital markets; commercial real estate; corporate and institutional banking; insurance; mortgage; payments; specialized lending; and wealth management. Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Truist is the sixth-largest commercial bank in the U.S. Truist Bank, Member FDIC. Learn more at Truist.com and see social media terms and conditions at Truist.com/SocialTerms.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 13,573
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/ptpegadaian.jpeg
PT. Pegadaian
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/bb&t.jpeg
BB&T
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
PT. Pegadaian
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BB&T
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT. Pegadaian in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BB&T in 2026.

Incident History — PT. Pegadaian (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT. Pegadaian cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — BB&T (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BB&T cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ptpegadaian.jpeg
PT. Pegadaian
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bb&t.jpeg
BB&T
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

PT. Pegadaian company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to BB&T company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, BB&T company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to PT. Pegadaian company.

In the current year, BB&T company and PT. Pegadaian company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BB&T company nor PT. Pegadaian company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither BB&T company nor PT. Pegadaian company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither BB&T company nor PT. Pegadaian company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither PT. Pegadaian company nor BB&T company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither PT. Pegadaian company nor BB&T company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

BB&T company employs more people globally than PT. Pegadaian company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds HIPAA certification.

Neither PT. Pegadaian nor BB&T holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N