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

Comparison Overview

Dana IncorporatedDana Incorporated
VS
Magna InternationalMagna International
Dana Incorporated

Dana Incorporated

3939 Technology Drive, Maumee, 43537, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.dana.com
778/1000Fair

In a world of constant motion, life is about balance. At Dana, our balanced approach considers the people, products, and planet that sustain us all. For 120 years, we've been powering innovation to move our world. Today, over 25,000 Dana people, in more than 20 countr...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:16,577
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Magna International

Magna International

377 Magna Drive, Aurora, Ontario, CA, L4G 7K1

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.magna.com
783/1000Fair

We see a future where everyone can live and move without limitations. That’s why we are developing technologies, systems and concepts that make vehicles safer and cleaner, while serving our communities, the planet and, above all, people. Forward. For all. Our common s...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:41,612
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Dana Incorporated

Dana Incorporated

-
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
Magna International

Magna International

-
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 Dana Incorporated in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Magna International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Dana Incorporated (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dana Incorporated 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 - Magna International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Magna International 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...
Dana Incorporated

Dana Incorporated

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Magna International

Magna International

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8