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

Comparison Overview

DHL Express JapanDHL Express Japan
VS
ArvatoArvato
DHL Express Japan

DHL Express Japan

東品川1-37-8, 品川区, 東京都 1400002, JP

Last Update: 20/04/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

DHL Expressは、世界220以上の国と地域をスピーディーに結ぶエアネットワークを築き、国際エクスプレスのリーディングカンパニーとして、オンラインショッピングから企業の国際貿易まで、人々の生活やビジネスを国際輸送でサポートしています。 DHLジャパン株式会社について DHLジャパンは、DHLグループの日本支社として1972年にサービスを開始しました。 DHLジャパンは、Great Place To Work® Institute Japanが発表する、日本における「働きがいのある会社」ランキングにおいて、13年連続でベストカン...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:58
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Arvato

Arvato

Reinhard-Mohn-Str., Gütersloh, DE, 33333

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://arvato.com/
775/1000Fair

𝗪𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 Logistics seems so simple – just goods in, goods out. For us there is so much more to it. By combining deep industry expertise with the right technologies, we develop innovative supply chain management and e-c...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:12,497
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DHL Express Japan

DHL Express Japan

-
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
Arvato

Arvato

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DHL Express Japan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arvato in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DHL Express Japan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DHL Express Japan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Arvato (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arvato 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...
DHL Express Japan

DHL Express Japan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Arvato

Arvato

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2