Comparison Overview

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

VS

Ford Motor Company

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

1919 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, 90501, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20

We are Honda. A company built on dreams and the determination to make them come true. Driven by our commitment to society and the planet, our work brings joy to our customers and enhances mobility, as we work to help people everywhere expand their life’s potential. Our products, from cars and trucks, to advanced light jets and other forms of mobility, reflect our belief that the purpose of technology is to help people. Together, we are building an inclusive culture where people feel seen and celebrated. Where associates from a variety of backgrounds can apply their unique ideas and experiences to help us create a cleaner, safer, more exciting mobile world. You’re invited to join Honda on this journey. Your individual skills, passion, persistence, innovative mindset and challenging spirit are needed to help Honda Bring the Future. Bring the Future at honda.com/careers

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 14,503
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Ford Motor Company

1 American Rd, Dearborn, Michigan, US, 48126
Last Update: 2026-01-18

We don't just make history -- we make the future. Ford put the world on wheels over a century ago, and our teams are re-inventing icons and creating groundbreaking connected and electric vehicles for the next century. We believe in serving our customers, our communities, and the world. If you do, too, come move the world and make the future with us. Ford is a global company with shared ideals and a deep sense of family. From our earliest days as a pioneer of modern transportation, we have sought to make the world a better place – one that benefits lives, communities and the planet. We are here to provide the means for every person to move and pursue their dreams, serving as a bridge between personal freedom and the future of mobility. In that pursuit, our 186,000 employees around the world help to set the pace of innovation every day. Privacy Policy: https://www.ford.com/help/privacy/

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 152,499
Subsidiaries: 35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/american-honda-motor-company-inc-.jpeg
American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
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/ford-motor-company.jpeg
Ford Motor Company
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
American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ford Motor Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for American Honda Motor Company, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ford Motor Company in 2026.

Incident History — American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Ford Motor Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ford Motor Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/american-honda-motor-company-inc-.jpeg
American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2022
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Replay Attack
Motivation: Unauthorized access to the vehicle
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ford-motor-company.jpeg
Ford Motor Company
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Ford Motor Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. and Ford Motor Company have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Ford Motor Company company and American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ford Motor Company company nor American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Ford Motor Company company nor American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Ford Motor Company company nor American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Both American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company and Ford Motor Company company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Ford Motor Company company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company.

Ford Motor Company company employs more people globally than American Honda Motor Company, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither American Honda Motor Company, Inc. nor Ford Motor Company holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N