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

Comparison Overview

Compashield®Compashield®
VS
Parker HannifinParker Hannifin
Compashield®

Compashield®

Bergsmansvägen 4, Hallsberg, sweden, SE, 69435

Last Update: 28/12/2025

View Profile
746/1000Moderate

COMPASHIELD® EXTRUSION - is our brand name for our extruded EMI gasket and are used for EMI shielding and environmental sealing of covers to electric and electronic equipment. Our extrusion process string injects electrically-conductive silicone rubber into a desired sh...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

6035 Parkland Blvd, Cleveland, 44124, US

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
610/1000Poor

Parker Hannifin is a Fortune 250 global leader in motion and control technologies. Guided by our purpose—“Enabling Engineering Breakthroughs that Lead to a Better Tomorrow”—we help customers solve complex challenges through expertise in electromechanical systems, filtra...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:29,965
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Compashield®

Compashield®

-
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 Compashield® in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Parker Hannifin in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Compashield® (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Compashield® 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 - 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...
Compashield®

Compashield®

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8