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

Comparison Overview

AMETEK JAPANAMETEK JAPAN
VS
SignifySignify
AMETEK JAPAN

AMETEK JAPAN

N/A

Last Update: 17/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.ametek.co.jp/
748/1000Moderate

AMETEK JAPAN is subsidiary of AMETEK, Inc. AMETEK, Inc. is a leading global manufacturer of electronic instruments and electromechanical devices with annual sales of approximately $5 billion. AMETEK has 17,000 colleagues at more than 150 operating locations, and a globa...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:32
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Signify

Signify

High Tech Campus 48, Eindhoven, North Brabant, NL, 5656 AE

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.signify.com
755/1000Fair

Signify (Euronext: LIGHT Signify is the world leader in lighting for professionals and consumers. We unlock the extraordinary potential of light for brighter lives and a better world. Our global portfolio of brands deliver advanced products, connected systems and servic...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:12,076
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AMETEK JAPAN

AMETEK JAPAN

-
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
Signify

Signify

-
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 Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AMETEK JAPAN in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Signify in 2026.

Incidents

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

AMETEK JAPAN 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 - Signify (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Signify cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
AMETEK JAPAN

AMETEK JAPAN

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Signify

Signify

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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