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

Comparison Overview

Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |
VS
ContinentalContinental
Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |

Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |

N/A

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
747/1000Moderate

Scania Luleå, Ferruform AB (juridiskt namn), är ett fristående helägt dotterbolag till Scania. Vi är centrum för Scanias tillverkning av ramkomponenter i höghållfasta material. Vi möjliggör omställningen till elektrifierade transportlösningar!

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:135
Subsidiaries:66
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Continental

Continental

Continental-Plaza 1, Hannover, Lower Saxony, DE, 30175

Last Update: 20/09/2026

View Profile
448/1000Critical

Continental is a leading tire manufacturer and industry specialist that develops and produces safe and convenient solutions for automotive manufacturers as well as industrial and end customers worldwide. Founded in 1871, the company generated sales of €19.7 billion in 2...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:64,210
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |

Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |

-
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
Continental

Continental

-
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 Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB | in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Continental has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB | (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB | cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Continental 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...
Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |

Scania Luleå | Ferruform AB |

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Continental

Continental

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON1768059238
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FRACONBLA1766997330
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON2135181122

FAQ

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