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

Comparison Overview

FEV EVA GmbHFEV EVA GmbH
VS
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]
FEV EVA GmbH

FEV EVA GmbH

Heidemannstraße 41a, München, Bayern, DE, 80939

Last Update: 22/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://fev-eva.com/
748/1000Moderate

DIE FEV GRUPPE FEV ist ein global führender Entwicklungsdienstleister im Automobilsektor und Innovationstreiber für unterschiedliche Industriezweige. Professor Franz Pischinger legte dafür den Grundstein, indem er seinen akademischen und technischen Hintergrund mit sein...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:340
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]

Mahindra Towers, Akurli Road,, Mumbai, 400101, IN

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
801/1000Good

A USD 19.4 billion multinational group based in Mumbai, India, Mahindra provides employment opportunities to over 256,000 people across 100 countries. Mahindra operates in the key industries that drive economic growth, enjoying a leadership position in tractors, utility...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:21,451
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FEV EVA GmbH

FEV EVA GmbH

-
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
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]

-
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 FEV EVA GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business] in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - FEV EVA GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FEV EVA GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business] (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business] 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...
FEV EVA GmbH

FEV EVA GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [Automotive and Farm Equipment Business]

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9