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

Comparison Overview

Avery Dennison SmartracAvery Dennison Smartrac
VS
FoxconnFoxconn
Avery Dennison Smartrac

Avery Dennison Smartrac

Willem Einthovenstraat 11, Oegstgeest, South Holland, NL, 2342

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Digital journey. Digital transformation. Digital evolution. Call it what you will, but the fact is we’ve all been living on ‘planet digital’ for a good while now. That’s why it’s time to change the narrative of digital simply being a thing we do, when in reality it thre...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:656
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Foxconn

Foxconn

US

Last Update: 23/09/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.foxconn.com
564/1000Very Poor

Established in Taiwan in 1974, Hon Hai Technology Group (Foxconn) (2317: Taiwan) is the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Foxconn is also the leading technological solution provider, and it continuously leverages its expertise in software and hardware to integra...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:99,265
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Avery Dennison Smartrac

Avery Dennison Smartrac

-
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
Foxconn

Foxconn

-
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 Avery Dennison Smartrac in 2026.

Incidents

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

Foxconn has 296.04% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Avery Dennison Smartrac (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avery Dennison Smartrac 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 - Foxconn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Foxconn 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...
Avery Dennison Smartrac

Avery Dennison Smartrac

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Foxconn

Foxconn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GOOFOXAPP1778617574
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNIWESFOX1780562007
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ANTFOX7-ECARGIT1781576848

FAQ

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