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

Comparison Overview

FCA Fiat Chrysler AutomobilesFCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
VS
MichelinMichelin
FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HA, GB

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.fcagroup.com
798/1000Fair

FCA Group is now Stellantis, one of the world's leading automakers and a mobility provider. Follow us here : https://www.linkedin.com/company/stellantis/

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:48,189
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Michelin

Michelin

Place des Carmes Déchaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, FR

Last Update: 22/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.michelin.com
605/1000Poor

Michelin is a world-leading manufacturer of life-changing composites and experiences. Pioneering materials science over more than 130 years, Michelin is uniquely positioned to make decisive contributions to human progress and a more sustainable world. Drawing on techno...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:57,575
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

-
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
Michelin

Michelin

-
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 FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Michelin has 96.08% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Michelin 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...
FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

FCA Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Michelin

Michelin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NO-SHOPRELOB1773534483
🔒 Incident : Breach
MADMICKORORA1773232260
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BRO3105131112625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9