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

Comparison Overview

CASE Construction Equipment ANZCASE Construction Equipment ANZ
VS
KonecranesKonecranes
CASE Construction Equipment ANZ

CASE Construction Equipment ANZ

31-53 Kurrajong Road, St Marys, 2750, AU

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.casece.com
745/1000Moderate

You can take pride in the name on your CASE machine. It’s backed by more than a century of productivity and performance. CASE Construction Equipment and your CASE distributor are here for you, not only when you buy the machine, but also after you put 1,000 or 10,000 hou...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Konecranes

Konecranes

P.O. Box 661, Koneenkatu 8, Hyvinkaa, FI, 05801

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.konecranes.com
790/1000Fair

Konecranes is a global leader in material handling solutions, serving a broad range of customers across multiple industries. We consistently set the industry benchmark, from everyday improvements to the breakthroughs at moments that matter most, because we know we can a...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:11,292
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CASE Construction Equipment ANZ

CASE Construction Equipment ANZ

-
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
Konecranes

Konecranes

-
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 Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CASE Construction Equipment ANZ in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Konecranes in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CASE Construction Equipment ANZ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CASE Construction Equipment ANZ 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 - Konecranes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Konecranes 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...
CASE Construction Equipment ANZ

CASE Construction Equipment ANZ

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Konecranes

Konecranes

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: 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:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2