Comparison Overview

Standard Chartered

VS

CIB Egypt

Standard Chartered

1 Basinghall Avenue, London, EC2V 5DD, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-17
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: 78,279
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

CIB Egypt

21/23 Charles De Gaulle Giza. P.O. Box 2430 Cairo, Egypt., Giza, undefined, 11213, EG
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Commercial International Bank was established in 1975 as a joint venture between the National Bank of Egypt (NBE, 51%) and the Chase Manhattan Bank (49%) under the name "Chase National Bank of Egypt”. Following Chase's decision to divest its equity stake in 1987, NBE increased its shareholding to 99.9%, changing the Bank’s name to Commercial International Bank (Egypt) S.A.E. NBE’s stake gradually decreased through several public offerings till reaching 18.7%. In 2006, a Consortium led by Ripplewood Holdings acquired NBE stake. In July 2009, Actis, a leading emerging markets private equity firm, invested US$ 244 million to get shares in CIB, acquiring hence 50% of the Ripplewood Holdings Consortium’s stake. Five months later, Ripplewood sold its remaining 4.7% stake over the open market, marking the successful transition of strategic partnership to be with Actis, who then became CIB’s largest shareholder with a 9.1% stake. In March 2014,Actis sold a portion of its holding, representing 2.6% of the Bank’s total outstanding shares, in the open market to a group of international investors. In May 2014, Actis, successfully realised its investment in CIB and sold its remaining 6.5% to Subsidiaries wholly owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd “Fairfax”. CIB is Egypt’s leading private sector bank, offering a broad range of financial products and services to its customers, including enterprises of all sizes, institutions, households and high-net worth individuals. CIB strives to provide superior financial solutions to meet all customers’ needs. Having the strongest brand equity rightfully places CIB as the bank of choice for over 500 of Egypt’s largest corporations. CIB shows tremendous potential within the bourgeoning Retail and SME Banking markets. Through its superior management, high-operating standards, corporate governance best practices and training programs,CIB has succeeded in becoming the most profitable commercial bank operating in Egypt for more than 40 years.

NAICS: 522
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15,324
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/cibegypt.jpeg
CIB Egypt
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
CIB Egypt
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 2026.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CIB Egypt in 2026.

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

Standard Chartered cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CIB Egypt (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CIB Egypt 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/cibegypt.jpeg
CIB Egypt
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither CIB Egypt 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 CIB Egypt company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CIB Egypt company nor Standard Chartered company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Standard Chartered company nor CIB Egypt company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Standard Chartered company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CIB Egypt company.

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

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Standard Chartered nor CIB Egypt 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