Comparison Overview

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group

VS

NN Group

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group

1丁目 1-2, Marunouchi Chiyoda-Ku,, Tokyo, undefined, undefined, JP
Last Update: 2026-01-18

SMBC Group is a top-tier global financial group. Headquartered in Tokyo and with a 400-year history, SMBC Group offers a diverse range of financial services, including banking, leasing, securities, credit cards, and consumer finance. The Group has more than 150 offices and 86,000 employees worldwide in nearly 40 countries. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. (SMFG) is the holding company of SMBC Group, one of the three largest banking groups in Japan. SMFG's shares trade on the Tokyo and Nagoya stock exchanges, and its ADRs trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: SMFG). Americas: https://www.smbcgroup.com/ EMEA: https://www.smbcgroup.com/emea/ APAC: https://www.smbc.co.jp/asia/ Tokyo: https://www.smfg.co.jp/english/

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 12,849
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

NN Group

Schenkkade 65, Den Haag, Zuid-Holland, NL, 2595
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

NN Group is an international financial services company, active in 10 countries, with a strong presence in a number of European countries and Japan. We are rooted in the Netherlands and have a rich history spanning 180 years. With our 16,000 colleagues, NN Group provides retirement services, pensions, insurance, banking and investments to approximately 19 million customers. NN Group includes Nationale-Nederlanden, NN, ABN AMRO Insurance, Movir, AZL, BeFrank, OHRA and Woonnu. NN Group opened for trading on 2 July 2014 on Euronext Amsterdam under the symbol ‘NN’ after its initial public offering (IPO). Throughout our history, we have merged, grown and changed, but the core of who we are has remained the same. At NN Group, we put our resources, expertise, and networks to use for the well-being of our customers, the advancement of our communities, the preservation of our planet, and for the promotion of a stable, inclusive, and sustainable economy. Our purpose is to help people care for what matters most to them. Because what matters to them matters to us.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 23,550
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sumitomo-mitsui-banking-corporation.jpeg
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
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/nn-group.jpeg
NN Group
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
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
NN Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NN Group in 2026.

Incident History — Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — NN Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NN Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sumitomo-mitsui-banking-corporation.jpeg
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nn-group.jpeg
NN Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to NN Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, NN Group company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company.

In the current year, NN Group company and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither NN Group company nor Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither NN Group company nor Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither NN Group company nor Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company nor NN Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

NN Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company.

NN Group company employs more people globally than Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor NN Group 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