Comparison Overview

Canary ๐Ÿค

VS

Capital One

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

Capital One

1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, Va, US, 22102
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 600 and 649

At Capital One, we're making things better for our customers and associates through innovation and collaboration. We were founded on the belief that everyone deserves financial freedomโ€”and are dedicated to a world where all have equal opportunity to prosper. Banking is in our DNA, but we are so much more than a bank. We always think about whatโ€™s nextโ€”and how we can bring our customers the tools needed to improve their financial lives. Your ideas, experiences and skills will help make banking better. Youโ€™ll be part of a supportive culture while earning amazing benefits. Thatโ€™s life at Capital One. Capital One is an equal opportunity employer (EOE, including disability/vet) committed to non-discrimination in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. View our Social Media Community Guidelines https://www.capitalone.com/digital/social-media/

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 81,373
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
11
Attack type number
1

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/capital-one.jpeg
Capital One
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
Capital One
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)

Capital One has 20.48% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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€” Capital One (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Capital One 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/capital-one.jpeg
Capital One
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Misconfigured Firewall
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Wrongdoing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Canary ๐Ÿค company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Capital One company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Capital One company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Canary ๐Ÿค company.

In the current year, Capital One and Canary ๐Ÿค have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Neither Capital One company nor Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Capital One company and Canary ๐Ÿค company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Capital One company nor Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค company nor Capital One company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Capital One company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Canary ๐Ÿค company.

Capital One company employs more people globally than Canary ๐Ÿค company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Capital One 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