Comparison Overview

Delta Electronics

VS

WEG

Delta Electronics

瑞光路, 內湖區, 114, TW
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

Delta is a global innovative provider of switching power supplies and DC brushless fans, as well as a major source for power management solutions, components, visual displays, industrial automation, networking products, and renewable energy solutions. Delta Group has sales offices worldwide and manufacturing plants in Taiwan, China, Thailand, Mexico, India and Europe. As a global innovator in power electronics, Delta's mission is, "To provide innovative, clean and efficient energy solutions for a better tomorrow."​ Delta is committed to environmental protection and has implemented green, lead-free production and waste management programs for many years.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 16,020
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

WEG

Avenida Pref. Waldemar Grubba, 3300, Jaraguá do Sul, 89256-900, BR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1961, WEG is a global electro-electronic equipment company, operating in the capital goods sector a with focus on electric motors, gearboxes and drives and controls, energy generation and transformers, electrification products and systems, automation and digitalization. WEG stands out in innovation by constantly developing solutions to meet the major trends in energy efficiency, renewable energy and electric mobility. With manufacturing units in 15 countries and present in more than 135 countries, the company has more than 47,000 employees worldwide. WEG’s net revenue reached R$ 38.0 billion in 2024, 57.0% from external markets.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 25,034
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/delta-electronics.jpeg
Delta Electronics
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/weg.jpeg
WEG
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Delta Electronics
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
WEG
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Delta Electronics in 2026.

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for WEG in 2026.

Incident History — Delta Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Delta Electronics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — WEG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WEG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/delta-electronics.jpeg
Delta Electronics
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/weg.jpeg
WEG
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

WEG company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Delta Electronics company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Delta Electronics company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas WEG company has not reported any.

In the current year, WEG company and Delta Electronics company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Delta Electronics company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while WEG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither WEG company nor Delta Electronics company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither WEG company nor Delta Electronics company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Delta Electronics company nor WEG company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Delta Electronics company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to WEG company.

WEG company employs more people globally than Delta Electronics company, reflecting its scale as a Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Delta Electronics nor WEG holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N