Comparison Overview
Diana Shipping Inc.

Diana Shipping Inc.
Pendelis 16, Palaio Faliro, Athens, GR, 17564
Last Update: 31/03/2026
Diana Shipping Inc. is a global provider of shipping transportation services through its ownership and bareboat charter-in of dry bulk vessels. The Company’s vessels are employed primarily on short to medium-term time charters and transport a range of dry bulk cargoes, ...

Hapag-Lloyd AG
Ballindamm 25, Hamburg, DE, 20095
Last Update: 01/04/2026
About Hapag-Lloyd With a fleet of 313 modern container ships and a total transport capacity of 2.5 million TEU, Hapag-Lloyd is one of the world’s leading liner shipping companies. In the Liner Shipping segment, the Company has around 14,000 employees and 400 offices in ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Diana Shipping Inc.







Hapag-Lloyd AG






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Diana Shipping Inc. in 2026.
Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Hapag-Lloyd AG in 2026.
Incident History - Diana Shipping Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Diana Shipping Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Hapag-Lloyd AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Hapag-Lloyd AG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Diana Shipping Inc.

Hapag-Lloyd AG
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.
n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.
Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.
Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.
Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.