Comparison Overview

407 ETR

VS

Lyft

407 ETR

6300 Steeles Ave. West, Woodbridge, L4H 1J1, CA
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749

Highway 407 ETR is the world’s first all electronic toll highway spanning 108 kilometres in the Greater Toronto Area. We provide fast, safe and reliable travel for commuters, businesses and communities. Our commitment goes beyond the road—we invest in Ontario’s economy, support local communities, and protect the environment. From traffic alerts and customer service to infrastructure innovation and social impact, we’re proud to serve the region we call home. Proudly majority Canadian-owned

NAICS: 485
NAICS Definition: Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
Employees: 531
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Lyft

185 Berry Street, None, San Francisco, CA, US, 94107
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Whether it’s an everyday commute or a journey that changes everything, Lyft is driven by our purpose: to serve and connect. In 2012, Lyft was founded as one of the first ridesharing communities in the United States. Now, millions of drivers have chosen to earn on billions of rides. Lyft offers rideshare, bikes, and scooters all in one app — for a more connected world, with transportation for everyone.

NAICS: 485
NAICS Definition: Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
Employees: 26,604
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/407etr.jpeg
407 ETR
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/lyft.jpeg
Lyft
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
407 ETR
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lyft
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Ground Passenger Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 407 ETR in 2025.

Incidents vs Ground Passenger Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lyft in 2025.

Incident History — 407 ETR (X = Date, Y = Severity)

407 ETR cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lyft (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lyft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/407etr.jpeg
407 ETR
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Internal Employee
Motivation: Unspecified
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lyft.jpeg
Lyft
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lyft company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to 407 ETR company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

407 ETR company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Lyft company has not reported any.

In the current year, Lyft company and 407 ETR company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lyft company nor 407 ETR company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

407 ETR company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Lyft company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Lyft company nor 407 ETR company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither 407 ETR company nor Lyft company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

407 ETR company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Lyft company.

Lyft company employs more people globally than 407 ETR company, reflecting its scale as a Ground Passenger Transportation.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds HIPAA certification.

Neither 407 ETR nor Lyft holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

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

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N