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

Comparison Overview

Cosco IndustriesCosco Industries
VS
Arçelik TürkiyeArçelik Türkiye
Cosco Industries

Cosco Industries

555 Waters Edge, Lombard, 60148, US

Last Update: 21/12/2025

View Profile
762/1000Fair

Cosco manufactures and markets a vast range of marking devices with stamps being at the core of the product line. Through our continued product development efforts and first class customer service, we are here to provide you with the best marking devices possible.

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:182
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

Karaağaç Caddesi, İstanbul, 34445, TR

Last Update: 02/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.arcelikglobal.com
791/1000Fair

Arçelik Türkiye olarak, "Dünyaya Saygılı Dünyada Saygın" misyonuyla yola çıkıyoruz ve teknoloji, insan kaynağı ve üretim gücümüzü sürdürülebilir bir gelecek için kullanıyoruz. 1955 yılında başlayan yolculuğumuz bugün, 22 marka, 46 üretim tesisi, 55.000 çalışan ve 58 ül...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:11,496
Subsidiaries:52
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cosco Industries

Cosco Industries

-
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
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cosco Industries in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arçelik Türkiye in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cosco Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cosco Industries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Arçelik Türkiye (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arçelik Türkiye 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...
Cosco Industries

Cosco Industries

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8