Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

ACO InotecACO Inotec
VS
CarrierCarrier
ACO Inotec

ACO Inotec

Am Ahlmannkai, Büdelsdorf, undefined, 24782, DE

Last Update: 06/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.aco-inotec.de/
745/1000Moderate

ACO Inotec gestaltet individuelle Entwässerungsrinnen und Gestaltungselemente aus Edelstahl und Stahl für Außenanlagen. Unsere Entwässerungssysteme mit den dazugehörigen Bauelementen aus Stahl sind sichere und effektive Lösungen zur Oberflächenentwässerung. An der Fassa...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:7
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Carrier

Carrier

13995 Pasteur Blvd, Palm Beach Gardens, 33418, US

Last Update: 19/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.carrier.com
787/1000Fair

Carrier is a global leader in intelligent climate and energy solutions, pioneering sustainable innovations in climate technologies. Founded by Willis Carrier, the inventor of modern air conditioning, we have been shaping industries and enhancing lives for more than a ce...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:25,922
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ACO Inotec

ACO Inotec

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Carrier

Carrier

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ACO Inotec in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

Carrier has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - ACO Inotec (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ACO Inotec cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Carrier (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carrier cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
ACO Inotec

ACO Inotec

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Carrier

Carrier

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIEVERTRACARTRIDEL1786611575

FAQ

Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between ACO Inotec company and Carrier company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between ACO Inotec and Carrier, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between ACO Inotec and Carrier, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - ACO Inotec or Carrier ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - ACO Inotec or Carrier ?
Between ACO Inotec and Carrier, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between ACO Inotec and Carrier, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9