Comparison Overview

Ferrara

VS

Electrolux Group

Ferrara

404 W Harrison St, Suite 650, Chicago, Illinois, US, 60607
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ferrarausa.com

We are Ferrara, an undisputed leader in sugar confections. Ferrara is #1 in the category in the US with ambitions of being the global leader by leveraging our focus, capabilities, and brand portfolio to drive category development for our community, customer, and consumers. Our diverse portfolio of two dozen brands includes SweeTARTS®, Trolli®, BRACH'S®, Black Forest® and NERDS®, along with iconic favorites like Lemonhead®, Red Hots® and Now and Later®. Headquartered in Chicago, Ferrara has over 4,000 dedicated employees and an operational network of over a dozen locations in North America that includes manufacturing, distribution, and R&D facilities.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 2,064
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
View Profile

Electrolux Group

Electrolux - Stockholm, Stockholm, SE, SE-10545
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849
http://www.electroluxgroup.com

Electrolux Group is a leading global appliance company that has shaped living for the better for more than 100 years. We reinvent taste, care and wellbeing experiences for millions of people, always striving to be at the forefront of sustainability in society through our solutions and operations. Under our group of leading appliance brands, including Electrolux, AEG and Frigidaire, we sell household products in around 120 markets every year. In 2024 Electrolux Group had sales of SEK 136 billion and employed approximately 41,000 people around the world. For more information go to www.electroluxgroup.com Comment moderation guidelines: We welcome open, respectful and constructive conversation on this page. At Electrolux Group, our values of respect, dignity and courtesy guide how we engage online, and we ask that all contributions align with these principles and LinkedIn’s Community Guidelines and User Agreement. To ensure a safe and inclusive environment, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, offensive, disruptive, misleading or false, repetitive or off-topic. We may also block or report users who repeatedly violate these guidelines. Please note that comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of Electrolux Group.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 30,968
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ferrara-.jpeg
Ferrara
—
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/electroluxgroup.jpeg
Electrolux Group
—
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
Ferrara
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Electrolux Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ferrara in 2026.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Electrolux Group in 2026.

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

Ferrara cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Electrolux Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Electrolux Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ferrara-.jpeg
Ferrara
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, operational disruption (timed to maximize pressure during peak season)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/electroluxgroup.jpeg
Electrolux Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Ferrara company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Electrolux Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Electrolux Group company and Ferrara company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Ferrara company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Electrolux Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Ferrara company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Electrolux Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Electrolux Group company nor Ferrara company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Ferrara company nor Electrolux Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Electrolux Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ferrara company.

Electrolux Group company employs more people globally than Ferrara company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ferrara nor Electrolux Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References