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

Comparison Overview

Godrej Security SolutionsGodrej Security Solutions
VS
Arçelik TürkiyeArçelik Türkiye
Godrej Security Solutions

Godrej Security Solutions

Pirojshanagar Road, Mumbai, 400079, IN

Last Update: 08/01/2026

View Profile

As challenges have advanced, so have solutions. Godrej Security Solutions believes it needs to constantly stay ahead and keep pace with the latest technology to meet growing needs. Godrej Security Solutions is one of the Divisions of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and ...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

Karaağaç Caddesi, İstanbul, 34445, TR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.arcelikglobal.com
791/1000Fair

Arçelik Türkiye olarak, "Dünyaya Saygılı Dünyada Saygın" misyonuyla yola çıkıyoruz ve teknoloji, insan kaynağı ve üretim gücümüzü sürdürülebilir bir gelecek için kullanıyoruz. 1955 yılında başlayan yolculuğumuz bugün, 22 marka, 46 üretim tesisi, 55.000 çalışan ve 58 ül...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:11,496
Subsidiaries:52
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Godrej Security Solutions

Godrej Security Solutions

-
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
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Godrej Security Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arçelik Türkiye in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Godrej Security Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Godrej Security Solutions 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 - Arçelik Türkiye (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arçelik Türkiye 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...
Godrej Security Solutions

Godrej Security Solutions

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA