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

Comparison Overview

HaskelHaskel
VS
ITWITW
Haskel

Haskel

N/A

Last Update: 06/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.haskel.com
746/1000Moderate

Haskel is the leading manufacturer of highly engineered pumps, gas compressors, valves and equipment designed to generate and control high pressures and deliver high-pressure gases in a wide variety of applications. Haskel is the leading global innovator and manufactu...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:241
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ITW

ITW

155 Harlem Avenue, Glenview, 60025, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
811/1000Good

ITW (NYSE: ITW) is a Fortune 300 global multi-industrial manufacturing leader with revenue of $15.9 billion in 2024. The company’s seven industry-leading segments leverage the unique ITW Business Model to drive solid growth with best-in-class margins and returns in mark...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:18,300
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Haskel

Haskel

-
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
ITW

ITW

-
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 Haskel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITW in 2026.

Incidents

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

Haskel 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 - ITW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITW 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...
Haskel

Haskel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ITW

ITW

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1