Comparison Overview

Eaton

VS

Molex

Eaton

30 Pembroke Road, Dublin, Ireland, 4, IE
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

Eaton is an intelligent power management company dedicated to improving the quality of life and protecting the environment for people everywhere. We are guided by our commitment to do business right, to operate sustainably and to help our customers manage power ─ today and well into the future. By capitalizing on the global growth trends of electrification and digitalization, we’re accelerating the planet’s transition to renewable energy and helping to solve the world’s most urgent power management challenges. Eaton is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Employer. Eaton is committed to ensuring equal employment opportunities for all job applicants and employees. Employment decisions are based upon job-related reasons regardless of an applicant's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin, disability, marital status, genetic information, protected veteran status, or any other status protected by law.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 52,173
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Molex

2222 Wellington Court, Lisle, IL, 60532, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Molex makes a connected world possible by enabling technologies that transform the future and improve lives. With a presence in more than 40 countries, Molex offers a complete range of connectivity products, services and solutions for the data communications, medical, industrial, automotive and consumer electronics industries. We’re doing more than developing solutions for our customers, we’re Creating Connections for Life.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 12,761
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eaton.jpeg
Eaton
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/molex.jpeg
Molex
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
Eaton
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Molex
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 Eaton in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Molex in 2025.

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

Eaton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Molex cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eaton.jpeg
Eaton
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/molex.jpeg
Molex
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Molex company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Eaton company.

In the current year, Molex company and Eaton company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Molex company nor Eaton company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Molex company nor Eaton company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Molex company nor Eaton company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Eaton company nor Molex company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Eaton company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Molex company.

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

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Eaton nor Molex holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N