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

Comparison Overview

Heidmar Inc.Heidmar Inc.
VS
Hapag-Lloyd AGHapag-Lloyd AG
Heidmar Inc.

Heidmar Inc.

89 Akti Miaouli, Piraeus, Attiki, GR, 185 38

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.heidmar.com
677/1000Weak

As the original pool manager in the tanker space, Heidmar understands the need for a consolidated and economical approach to the tanker market. Our almost 40 years of innovation, performance, and transparency is evidenced in the strong relationships we enjoy across the ...

NAICS:483
NAICS Definition:Water Transportation
Employees:59
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Ballindamm 25, Hamburg, 20095, DE

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.hapag-lloyd.com
784/1000Fair

With a fleet of 302 modern container ships and a total transport capacity of 2.5 million TEU, Hapag-Lloyd is one of the world’s leading liner shipping companies. In the Liner Shipping segment, the Company has 15,200 employees and 400 offices in 140 countries. Hapag-Lloy...

NAICS:483
NAICS Definition:Water Transportation
Employees:15,801
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Heidmar Inc.

Heidmar Inc.

-
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
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

-
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 Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Heidmar Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

Hapag-Lloyd AG has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Heidmar Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Heidmar Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Hapag-Lloyd AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hapag-Lloyd AG 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...
Heidmar Inc.

Heidmar Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
HEI432092125
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAP1789129613
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAP508092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9