Comparison Overview

Standard Chartered

VS

Attijariwafa bank

Standard Chartered

1 Basinghall Avenue, London, England, GB, EC2V 5DD
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 800 and 849

We are a leading international banking group, with a presence in 54 of the world’s most dynamic markets. Our purpose is to drive commerce and prosperity through our unique diversity, and our heritage and values are expressed in our brand promise, here for good. If you’re interested joining Standard Chartered sign up to our Talent Network. Link: https://www.sc.com/careers/talentnetwork Standard Chartered PLC is listed on the London and Hong Kong stock exchanges.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 77,119
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Attijariwafa bank

2 Boulevard Moulay Youssef Casablanca, MA
Last Update: 2025-11-22

With our universal banking model, our pan-African scope, the complementarity of our businesses and our solid expertise, we are a leading player in the Moroccan and African financial sector. For over a century, we’ve been able to adapt by diversifying our business lines, renewing our offers and revising our structures to fulfil our aim of becoming the leading customer service bank. At Attijariwafa bank, we currently support 10 million retail, professional, corporate and institutional clients, with 20,125 employees in 25 countries throughout Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Show more Show less

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 10,001
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/standardchartered.jpeg
Standard Chartered
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/attijariwafa-bank.jpeg
Attijariwafa bank
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
Standard Chartered
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Attijariwafa bank
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Standard Chartered in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Attijariwafa bank in 2025.

Incident History — Standard Chartered (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Standard Chartered cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Attijariwafa bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Attijariwafa bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/standardchartered.jpeg
Standard Chartered
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised ATM Network
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/attijariwafa-bank.jpeg
Attijariwafa bank
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Standard Chartered company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Attijariwafa bank company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Standard Chartered company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Attijariwafa bank company has not reported any.

In the current year, Attijariwafa bank company and Standard Chartered company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Attijariwafa bank company nor Standard Chartered company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Standard Chartered company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Attijariwafa bank company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Attijariwafa bank company nor Standard Chartered company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Standard Chartered company nor Attijariwafa bank company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Standard Chartered company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Attijariwafa bank company.

Standard Chartered company employs more people globally than Attijariwafa bank company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor Attijariwafa bank 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