Comparison Overview

Canary ๐Ÿค

VS

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Canary ๐Ÿค

New York, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17

The women-led team at Canary built an employee relief fund solution designed to help companies of any size power emergency payments to workers in crisis. Since beginning with employers, our solution has helped other organizations, nonprofits, and investment firms deliver emergency cash to their communities when they need it most. We leverage the latest technology and payments innovations to give people the peace of mind and confidence to recover from emergencies and to invest in their futures.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC, 28255, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

From local communities to global markets, we are dedicated to shaping the future responsibly and helping clients thrive in a changing world. โ€œBank of America Merrill Lynchโ€ is the marketing name for the global banking and global markets businesses of Bank of America Corporation. Bank of America is a marketing name for the Retirement Services business of Bank of America Corporation. Lending, derivatives, and other commercial banking activities are performed globally by banking affiliates of Bank of America Corporation, including Bank of America, N.A., Member FDIC. Securities, strategic advisory, and other investment banking activities are performed globally by investment banking affiliates of Bank of America Corporation (โ€œInvestment Banking Affiliatesโ€), including, in the United States, BofA Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., all of which are registered broker-dealers and Members of SIPC, and in other jurisdictions, by locally registered entities. BofA Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. are registered as futures commission merchants with the CFTC and are members of the NFA. ย  Investment products: Are Not FDIC Insured May Lose Value Are Not Bank Guaranteed Any opinions, views, statements, estimates or projections (โ€œpostsโ€) posted on this web page are solely those of the individual author(s). As such, posts by an employee of BofAML or any of its affiliates are solely those of such employee or agent and do not necessarily reflect the views of BofAML. BofAML is not responsible for the content, or output of external websites. For Terms and Conditions and Disclaimers, please visit go.bofaml.com/social. Bank of America LinkedIn Community Guidelines can be found at: http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/social-media/linkedin-community-guidelines.html

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 17,432
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/workwithcanary.jpeg
Canary ๐Ÿค
โ€”
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bank-of-america-merrill-lynch.jpeg
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
โ€”
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
โ€”
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Canary ๐Ÿค
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

Canary ๐Ÿค has 20.48% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bank of America Merrill Lynch in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Canary ๐Ÿค (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Canary ๐Ÿค cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Bank of America Merrill Lynch (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bank of America Merrill Lynch cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/workwithcanary.jpeg
Canary ๐Ÿค
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bank-of-america-merrill-lynch.jpeg
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error (Email Misconfiguration)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Bank of America Merrill Lynch company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Canary ๐Ÿค company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Canary ๐Ÿค company.

In the current year, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Canary ๐Ÿค have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Neither Bank of America Merrill Lynch company nor Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Bank of America Merrill Lynch company and Canary ๐Ÿค company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Bank of America Merrill Lynch company nor Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค company nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Canary ๐Ÿค company.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch company employs more people globally than Canary ๐Ÿค company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Bank of America Merrill Lynch holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a projectโ€™s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a projectโ€™s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybookโ€™s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundleโ€™s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybookโ€”on both their local machines and CI environmentโ€”to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybookโ€™s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L