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

Comparison Overview

Eberspächer GroupEberspächer Group
VS
Tata MotorsTata Motors
Eberspächer Group

Eberspächer Group

Eberspächerstrasse 24, Esslingen, 73730, DE

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

The Eberspächer Group is one of the world's leading system developers and suppliers to the automotive industry. With its three Divisions - Exhaust Technology, Climate Control Systems, and Automotive Controls - the Company is a valued innovation partner and pacesetter fo...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:5,229
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Tata Motors

Tata Motors

Bypass Road, Pune, 411046, IN

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.tatamotors.com
657/1000Weak

At the forefront of shaping mobility for over eight decades, driven by a legacy of innovation and an unwavering commitment to excellence. We fuse next-generation technologies with operational precision and continuous value creation — across every vehicle and process. B...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:74,662
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Eberspächer Group

Eberspächer Group

-
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
Tata Motors

Tata Motors

-
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 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eberspächer Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Motors in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Eberspächer Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eberspächer Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tata Motors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Motors 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...
Eberspächer Group

Eberspächer Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
EBE23468922
Tata Motors

Tata Motors

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TAT0662106111725
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAT2032920103125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2