Comparison Overview

Tata Capital

VS

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group

Tata Capital

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai, 400013, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

Tata Capital Limited is a subsidiary of Tata Sons Limited. The Company is registered with the Reserve Bank of India as a Core Investment Company and offers through itself and its subsidiaries fund and fee-based financial services to its customers, under the Tata Capital brand. As a trusted and customer-centric, one-stop financial services provider, Tata Capital caters to the diverse needs of retail, corporate and institutional customers, across various areas of business namely the Commercial Finance, Infrastructure Finance, Cleantech Finance, Wealth Management, Consumer Loans and distribution and marketing of Tata Cards. Tata Capital has over 500+ branches spanning all critical markets in India.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 24,293
Subsidiaries: 66
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tata-capital.jpeg
Tata Capital
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/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
Compliance Summary
Tata Capital
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Capital in 2026.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

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

Incident History — Tata Capital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Capital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tata-capital.jpeg
Tata Capital
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sumitomo-mitsui-banking-corporation.jpeg
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Tata Capital company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Tata Capital company has reported more cyber incidents than Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company.

Tata Capital company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Tata Capital company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Tata Capital company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Tata Capital nor Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC 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