Comparison Overview

Canary ๐Ÿค

VS

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

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

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.

None
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 800 and 849

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. also known as PSBC is a commercial retail bank founded in 2007 and headquartered in Beijing. It provides basic financial services, especially to small and medium enterprises, rural[1] and low income customers. As of December 31, 2017, PSBC has 39,798[2] branches covering all regions of China. PSBC was set up with an initial capital of RMB20 billion in 2007 from the State Post Bureau. Today it has RMB1.5 trillion in deposits and the second largest number of branches, after the Agricultural Bank of China. During the Global Financial Crisis, the government took several measures to spread its national economic stimulus plan specifically to rural areas. This included using microfinance services provided by the Postal Savings Bank as a tool for national development and poverty reduction. The bank with its extremely broad reach also assists Chinaโ€™s credit cooperatives in their microcredit schemes. On December 8, 2015, China Postal Savings Bank, through issuing pro-float stock, received an injection of investment from the Temasek Holdings of Singapore, UBS, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the International Finance Corporation, Morgan Stanley, DBS Bank, Tencent, Ant Financial Services Group, China Life and China Telecom, with a total investment of 45.1 billion yuan. These "strategic investors" together held a 16.92% stake in the company at the time of purchase. The stock was listed through an initial public offering on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong on September 30, 2016. Prior to its listing, it was the largest unlisted Chinese bank.[3] Xuewen Zhang and Hong Lao serve as Vice Presidents of the bank and co-executive directors.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 36
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-๏ผŒ.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
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
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
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 Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. 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€” Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. 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/postal-savings-bank-of-china-co-ltd-๏ผŒ.jpeg
Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Canary ๐Ÿค company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Canary ๐Ÿค company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported more cyber incidents than Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Canary ๐Ÿค company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company nor Canary ๐Ÿค company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค company nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค company nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. company employs more people globally than Canary ๐Ÿค company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Canary ๐Ÿค nor Postal Savings Bank of China Co., Ltd. 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