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

Comparison Overview

BARTBART
VS
Deutsche BahnDeutsche Bahn
BART

BART

2150 Webster St, Oakland, California, US, 94612

Last Update: 20/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.bart.gov/
734/1000Moderate

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is a heavy-rail public transit system that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with communities in the East Bay and South Bay. BART service currently extends as far as Millbrae, Richmond, Antioch, Dublin/Pleasant...

NAICS:482
NAICS Definition:Rail Transportation
Employees:2,664
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Deutsche Bahn

Deutsche Bahn

Potsdamer Platz 2, Berlin, 10785, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.deutschebahn.com
775/1000Fair

We are Deutsche Bahn. Millions of passengers travel with us every day, and we transport enormous volumes of goods – across Germany and throughout neighboring European countries. DB is one of Germany’s most diverse employers. With more than 230,000 employees in 20 count...

NAICS:482
NAICS Definition:Rail Transportation
Employees:27,394
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BART

BART

-
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
Deutsche Bahn

Deutsche Bahn

-
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 Rail Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BART in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

Deutsche Bahn has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

BART cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Deutsche Bahn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Bahn 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...
BART

BART

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BAR41328823
Deutsche Bahn

Deutsche Bahn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DEU1771986734

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA