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

Comparison Overview

AMETEK MRO AEMAMETEK MRO AEM
VS
QantasQantas
AMETEK MRO AEM

AMETEK MRO AEM

Stansted (Head Office) Taylor’s End Stansted Airport , Stansted Airport, CM24 1RB , GB

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.aem.co.uk/
752/1000Fair

Since 1959, AMETEK MRO AEM has been Europe's leading independent overhaul and repair facility. The company has approximately 220 employees and a turnover in excess of $40 million. We have three UK sites: Stansted Airport in Essex, Luton Airport in Bedfordshire and R...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:113
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Qantas

Qantas

10 Bourke Road, Mascot, 2020, AU

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.qantas.com
100/1000Critical

We would like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the local lands and waterways on which we live, work and fly. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.   Spirit is everything to us, and joining the Qantas team means bringing your spirit to ours. We have...

NAICS:481
NAICS Definition:Air Transportation
Employees:18,076
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AMETEK MRO AEM

AMETEK MRO AEM

-
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
Qantas

Qantas

-
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 Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AMETEK MRO AEM in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Airlines and Aviation Industry Avg (This Year)

Qantas has 197.03% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - AMETEK MRO AEM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AMETEK MRO AEM 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 - Qantas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Qantas 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...
AMETEK MRO AEM

AMETEK MRO AEM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Qantas

Qantas

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OPTMEDQAN1784773430
🔒 Incident : Breach
LATORIQANAUSMEDOPT1790224558
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LOC1774283448

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA