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

Comparison Overview

FGV TransportesFGV Transportes
VS
AramexAramex
FGV Transportes

FGV Transportes

Rua Barão de Itambi, 60, Rio de Janeiro, 22231000, BR

Last Update: 28/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://transportes.fgv.br/
751/1000Fair

A Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV, ao longo de 76 anos de atuação, vem construindo uma trajetória de excelência na história do país nas áreas de administração, economia, direito, ciência social, matemática, pesquisa histórica e documentação. Atualmente, a FGV é o 3º melho...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aramex

Aramex

Dubai Logistics City, Dubai, AE, 3841

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aramex.com
792/1000Fair

Founded in 1982, Aramex has emerged as a global leader in logistics and transportation, renowned for its innovative services tailored to businesses and consumers. As a listed company on the Dubai Financial Market (since 2005) and headquartered in the UAE, our strategic ...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:20,257
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FGV Transportes

FGV Transportes

-
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
Aramex

Aramex

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FGV Transportes in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramex in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - FGV Transportes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FGV Transportes 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 - Aramex (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aramex cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
FGV Transportes

FGV Transportes

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aramex

Aramex

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82424
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PHPGurukul Student Information System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /student_edit1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82423
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in macrozheng mall up to 1.0.3. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /order/paySuccess of the component Payment Status Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument orderId leads to enforcement of behavioral workflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The vendor deleted the GitHub issue for this vulnerability without any explanation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82422
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /pages/emp_del.php. The manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82421
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /pages/emp_edit.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-15369
SUMMARY

The Custom User Registration Fields for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to, and including, 2.2.3. This is due to the plugin accepting an attacker-controlled afreg_select_user_role value from the unauthenticated WooCommerce Store API /wc/store/v1/checkout request in the af_reg_checkout_data_to_order_meta_data_block() function, persisting it in order meta, and then passing it directly to WP_User::add_role() in the af_reg_custom_order_processing_function() function (hooked to woocommerce_thankyou) without validating against the plugin's admin-configured allowed role list. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to elevate their privileges to Administrator by creating an account during checkout with a modified JSON body specifying administrator (or any other role slug) as the desired role. Note: The exploit requires the "User Role Selection" setting to be enabled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-29
UPDATED
Date2026-08-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9