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

Comparison Overview

AraçisteAraçiste
VS
STEFSTEF
Araçiste

Araçiste

Çağla Sokak, İstanbul, 34700, TR

Last Update: 16/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://araciste.koczer.com
749/1000Moderate

Türkiye'nin en büyük satın alma şirketi Zer tarafından şirketlere özel amaçlı personel taşıma imkanı sunan Araçİste, 2016 yılından bu yana faaliyet gösteriyor. Üç kolay adımda şirket personelinin uygulama üzerinde yaratacağı talep ile özel şoförlü araçlarımız belirledi...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:50
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
STEF

STEF

93 Boulevard Malesherbes, Paris, 75008, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

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

STEF group is the European leader for temperature controlled logistics and transport. Our 22,000 employees in 8 countries are dedicated to serve everyday agrifood, distribution, foodservice and seafood players with the highest standards of security, rapidity and quality...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:12,305
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Araçiste

Araçiste

-
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
STEF

STEF

-
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 Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Araçiste in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for STEF in 2026.

Incidents

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

Araçiste 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 - STEF (X = Date, Y = Severity)

STEF 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...
Araçiste

Araçiste

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
STEF

STEF

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA