Comparison Overview

Arnlea Systems

VS

SAP

Arnlea Systems

Johnstone House, Aberdeen, undefined, AB10 1UD, GB
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900

Strong

We are the global leader in industrial mobile software products for tracking, inspection and maintenance to the Oil & Gas industry. We develop and deliver mobile technology solutions via Nexar, our industrial mobile software, in materials management, inspections, and maintenance areas. Nexar utilises the latest handheld, fixed reader, RFID and barcode technology and integrates seamlessly within our customerโ€™s corporate systems. Nexar simplifies the receipt, management and relocation of inventory, the visibility and traceability of equipment in logistics activities and the history/condition of an asset. This allows for more efficient and effective inventory, maintenance and inspection strategies. Nexar captures inspection results for any and all equipment and material, including Ex inspections. Arnleaโ€™s Nexar software product suite delivers real operational efficiency, asset integrity and regulatory compliance, reducing operating costs and improving safety.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 20
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

SAP

Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16, None, Walldorf, BW, DE, 69190
Last Update: 2025-08-20 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

SAP is the leading enterprise application and business AI company. We stand at the intersection of business and technology, where our innovations are designed to directly address real business challenges and produce real-world impacts. Our solutions are the backbone for the worldโ€™s most complex and demanding processes. SAPโ€™s integrated portfolio unites the elements of modern organizations โ€” from workforce and financials to customers and supply chains โ€” into a unified ecosystem that drives progress. SAP privacy statement for followers: www.sap.com/sps Our Community Guidelines At SAP, we're committed to fostering meaningful conversations that respect everyone in our community. To maintain a positive environment, we moderate comments that: โ€ข Target individuals personally, including our employees, customers, or partners โ€ข Contain discriminatory, harassing, or threatening language/content โ€ข Share personal information without consent โ€ข Promote misinformation or spam or 3rd-party links We believe in open dialogue and constructive feedback, but we will remove content that violates these guidelines without notice. We appreciate your understanding and contribution to a respectful community. For questions about our moderation practices, please DM or contact us at [email protected].

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 133,175
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arnlea-systems-ltd.jpeg
Arnlea Systems
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sap.jpeg
SAP
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Arnlea Systems
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SAP
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arnlea Systems in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

SAP has 1421.74% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History โ€” Arnlea Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arnlea Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” SAP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SAP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arnlea-systems-ltd.jpeg
Arnlea Systems
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sap.jpeg
SAP
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network, RFC-Exposed Function Module, ABAP Code Injection
Motivation: Data Theft, Data Manipulation, Privilege Escalation, Credential Theft, Operational Disruption, Potential Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network (RMI-P4 module), Path Traversal (SAP Print Service), File Upload (SAP Supplier Relationship Management)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

SAP company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to Arnlea Systems company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

SAP company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Arnlea Systems company has not reported any.

In the current year, SAP company has reported more cyber incidents than Arnlea Systems company.

SAP company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Arnlea Systems company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SAP company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Arnlea Systems company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither SAP company nor Arnlea Systems company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

SAP company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Arnlea Systems company has not reported such incidents publicly.

SAP company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Arnlea Systems company.

SAP company employs more people globally than Arnlea Systems company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

MinIO is a high-performance object storage system. In all versions prior to RELEASE.2025-10-15T17-29-55Z, a privilege escalation vulnerability allows service accounts and STS (Security Token Service) accounts with restricted session policies to bypass their inline policy restrictions when performing operations on their own account, specifically when creating new service accounts for the same user. The vulnerability exists in the IAM policy validation logic where the code incorrectly relied on the DenyOnly argument when validating session policies for restricted accounts. When a session policy is present, the system should validate that the action is allowed by the session policy, not just that it is not denied. An attacker with valid credentials for a restricted service or STS account can create a new service account for itself without policy restrictions, resulting in a new service account with full parent privileges instead of being restricted by the inline policy. This allows the attacker to access buckets and objects beyond their intended restrictions and modify, delete, or create objects outside their authorized scope. The vulnerability is fixed in version RELEASE.2025-10-15T17-29-55Z.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Envoy is an open source edge and service proxy. Envoy versions earlier than 1.36.2, 1.35.6, 1.34.10, and 1.33.12 contain a use-after-free vulnerability in the Lua filter. When a Lua script executing in the response phase rewrites a response body so that its size exceeds the configured per_connection_buffer_limit_bytes (default 1MB), Envoy generates a local reply whose headers override the original response headers, leaving dangling references and causing a crash. This results in denial of service. Updating to versions 1.36.2, 1.35.6, 1.34.10, or 1.33.12 fixes the issue. Increasing per_connection_buffer_limit_bytes (and for HTTP/2 the initial_stream_window_size) or increasing per_request_buffer_limit_bytes / request_body_buffer_limit can reduce the likelihood of triggering the condition but does not correct the underlying memory safety flaw.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

In Xpdf 4.05 (and earlier), a PDF object loop in a CMap, via the "UseCMap" entry, leads to infinite recursion and a stack overflow.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
Description

A vulnerability was identified in NucleoidAI Nucleoid up to 0.7.10. The impacted element is the function extension.apply of the file /src/cluster.ts of the component Outbound Request Handler. Such manipulation of the argument https/ip/port/path/headers leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

HCL Traveler for Microsoft Outlook (HTMO) is susceptible to a credential leakage which could allow an attacker to access other computers or applications.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N