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

Comparison Overview

Changan AutomobileChangan Automobile
VS
ContinentalContinental
Changan Automobile

Changan Automobile

260 East Jianxin Rd, Jiangbei District, Chongqing, CN, 400023

Last Update: 21/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.globalchangan.com
758/1000Fair

CHANGAN Automobile is a global mobility technology company. Our business spans vehicle development, manufacturing, sales, and service, supported by a growing presence in markets around the world. Our brand portfolio includes CHANGAN, CHANGAN NEVO, CHANGAN DEEPAL, AVATR,...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:3,846
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Continental

Continental

Continental-Plaza 1, Hannover, Lower Saxony, DE, 30175

Last Update: 20/09/2026

View Profile
448/1000Critical

Continental is a leading tire manufacturer and industry specialist that develops and produces safe and convenient solutions for automotive manufacturers as well as industrial and end customers worldwide. Founded in 1871, the company generated sales of €19.7 billion in 2...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:64,210
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Changan Automobile

Changan Automobile

-
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
Continental

Continental

-
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 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Changan Automobile in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Continental has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Changan Automobile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Changan Automobile 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 - Continental (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Continental 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...
Changan Automobile

Changan Automobile

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Continental

Continental

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON1768059238
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FRACONBLA1766997330
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON2135181122

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3