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

Comparison Overview

AMETEK MROAMETEK MRO
VS
Turkish AerospaceTurkish Aerospace
AMETEK MRO

AMETEK MRO

4085 Southwest Blvd, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74107, US

Last Update: 21/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ametekmro.com
749/1000Moderate

AMETEK MRO, a division of AMETEK, Inc., is a global provider of third-party MRO services to commercial, regional and general aviation. Our operations specialize in a wide range of repair and overhaul services and are FAA, EASA, CAAC, and CAAS approved.

NAICS:3364
NAICS Definition:Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees:451
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Turkish Aerospace

Turkish Aerospace

Fethiye Mahallesi, Havacilik Bulvari No:17, Ankara, 06980, TR

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tusas.com/
777/1000Fair

Türk Uçak Sanayii Anonim Ortaklığı (TUSAŞ), 28 Haziran 1973 tarihinde Türkiye'nin savunma sanayiinde dışa bağımlılığını azaltmak amacıyla Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı bünyesinde kurulmuştur. Türk Hava Kuvvetleri'nin savaş uçağı ihtiyacının karşılanmasına yönelik olara...

NAICS:3364
NAICS Definition:Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing
Employees:12,563
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AMETEK MRO

AMETEK MRO

-
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
Turkish Aerospace

Turkish Aerospace

-
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 Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AMETEK MRO in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Turkish Aerospace has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

AMETEK MRO 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 - Turkish Aerospace (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Turkish Aerospace 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

AMETEK MRO

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Turkish Aerospace

Turkish Aerospace

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TUR1786092730

FAQ

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