Comparison Overview

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group

VS

Old Mutual

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group

1丁目 1-2, Marunouchi Chiyoda-Ku,, Tokyo, undefined, undefined, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-20

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

Old Mutual

107 Rivonia Rd, Johannesburg, Gauteng, undefined, ZA
Last Update: 2025-11-25
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

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/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
Compliance Summary
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Old Mutual
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 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Old Mutual in 2025.

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 — Old Mutual (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Old Mutual 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/old-mutual.jpeg
Old Mutual
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Old Mutual company and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group nor Old Mutual 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