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

Comparison Overview

Aussie Fluid PowerAussie Fluid Power
VS
Parker HannifinParker Hannifin
Aussie Fluid Power

Aussie Fluid Power

136 Cockburn Rd, North Coogee, 6163, AU

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
660/1000Weak

AFP is an innovative engineering company that has significant experience in designing and implementing hydraulic, pneumatic, and electrical control systems. We offer solutions for a wide range of clients including those operating within mining & minerals, oil & gas, mar...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:58
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

6035 Parkland Blvd, Cleveland, OH, US, 44124

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
586/1000Very Poor

Parker Hannifin is a Fortune 250 global leader in motion and control technologies. For more than a century the company has been enabling engineering breakthroughs that lead to a better tomorrow. Learn more at www.parker.com or on Twitter @parkerhannifin. Executive Offi...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:28,300
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Aussie Fluid Power

Aussie Fluid Power

-
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
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aussie Fluid Power in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Parker Hannifin in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Aussie Fluid Power (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aussie Fluid Power cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Parker Hannifin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Parker Hannifin 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...
Aussie Fluid Power

Aussie Fluid Power

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AUS5294452102025
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PAR0432504110325
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR134826522
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR448072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57980
SUMMARY

Authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56741
SUMMARY

JLine is a Java library for handling console input. Prior to 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1, the JLine3 Telnet server remote-telnet module does not apply an upper bound to terminal dimensions received via the Telnet NAWS option, and TelnetIO.handleNAWS() in TelnetIO.java:856-879 reads client-supplied width and height as 16-bit unsigned integers and passes values such as 65535x65535 to setTerminalGeometry(), allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly alternate values and trigger continuous expensive rendering work that causes CPU exhaustion and denial of service. This issue is fixed in versions 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56740
SUMMARY

JLine is a Java library for handling console input. Prior to 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1, the JLine3 Telnet server remote-telnet module does not limit the number of environment variables a client may inject via the Telnet NEW-ENVIRON option, and TelnetIO.readNEVariables() in TelnetIO.java:1127-1180 stores each variable pair in a HashMap held by ConnectionData, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to flood unique variable pairs before the terminating IAC SE byte and exhaust JVM heap memory with an OutOfMemoryError. This issue is fixed in versions 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56171
SUMMARY

Exposure of private personal information to an unauthorized actor in Windows RDP allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54335
SUMMARY

Feathersjs is a framework for creating web APIs and real-time applications with TypeScript or JavaScript. In 5.0.44 and earlier, the _.merge(target, source) utility exported by @feathersjs/commons recursively merges source into target by iterating Object.keys(source). When source was produced by JSON.parse and contains a __proto__, constructor, or prototype key, that key is returned as an own-enumerable property; the recursive merge then resolves target['__proto__'] to Object.prototype and writes attacker-supplied properties onto it, polluting the prototype for all plain objects in the process for the lifetime of the Node process. This issue is fixed in version 5.0.45.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2