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

Comparison Overview

Grupo Komatsu CumminsGrupo Komatsu Cummins
VS
FinningFinning
Grupo Komatsu Cummins

Grupo Komatsu Cummins

Avenida Américo Vespucio 0631, Santiago, 8730596, CL

Last Update: 20/03/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

Komatsu Limited es una corporación de origen japonés que desde 1921 diseña y fabrica equipos para la minería, construcción y sector forestal, siendo uno de los líderes mundiales en este mercado. En 1999 Komatsu se establece en Chile a través del Holding Komatsu Cummins...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:5,714
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Finning

Finning

CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.finning.com
771/1000Fair

Finning is the world's largest Caterpillar dealer delivering unrivalled service for over 90 years. We sell, rent and provide parts and service for equipment and engines to customers in various industries, including mining, construction, petroleum, forestry and a wide ra...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:10,704
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Grupo Komatsu Cummins

Grupo Komatsu Cummins

-
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
Finning

Finning

-
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 Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grupo Komatsu Cummins in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Finning in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Grupo Komatsu Cummins (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grupo Komatsu Cummins 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 - Finning (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Finning 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...
Grupo Komatsu Cummins

Grupo Komatsu Cummins

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Finning

Finning

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2