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

Comparison Overview

bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)
VS
Royal EnfieldRoyal Enfield
bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)

bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)

Bouw 18, Buggenhout, Oost-Vlaanderen, 9255, BE

Last Update: 21/11/2025

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bilsteingroup.com
745/1000Moderate

Oplossingen „Made in Germany“ – wereldwijd thuis febi bilstein is wereldwijd een van de toonaangevende fabrikanten en leveranciers van onderdelen voor personen- en bedrijfswagens op de independent aftermarket. Al meer dan 160 jaar staat ons merk voor continuïteit, kwal...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:23
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Royal Enfield

Royal Enfield

Eicher Motors, #96, Sector 32,, Gurgaon, 122001, IN

Last Update: 07/08/2026

View Profile
603/1000Poor

The oldest motorcycle brand in continuous production, Royal Enfield made its first motorcycle in 1901. A division of Eicher Motors Limited, Royal Enfield has created the mid-sized motorcycle segment in India with its unique and distinctive modern classic bikes. Royal ...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:20,241
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)

bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)

-
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
Royal Enfield

Royal Enfield

-
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 bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Royal Enfield has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Royal Enfield (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Royal Enfield 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...
bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)

bilstein group FBE (febi Benelux NV)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Royal Enfield

Royal Enfield

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SFPFEDROY1786105635
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ROY1770472476

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA