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

Comparison Overview

DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.
VS
Hapag-Lloyd AGHapag-Lloyd AG
DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.

DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.

Altunizade Mah. Kısıklı Cad. No:26 , İstanbul, Üsküdar, 34662, TR

Last Update: 11/12/2025

View Profile
762/1000Fair

To improve our position as a competitive and leader shipping company in the global market targeting to zero incidents, zero spills to sea, susceptibility to the environment

NAICS:483
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:421
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Ballindamm 25, Hamburg, DE, 20095

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.hapag-lloyd.com
797/1000Fair

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 ...

NAICS:483
NAICS Definition:Water Transportation
Employees:15,039
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.

DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.

-
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
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

-
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 Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hapag-Lloyd AG in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş. 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 - Hapag-Lloyd AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hapag-Lloyd AG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.

DİTAŞ Deniz İşletmeciliği ve Tankerciliği A.Ş.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAP508092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1