Comparison Overview

HMM

VS

Hapag-Lloyd AG

HMM

108 Yeoui-daero, Yeongdengpo-gu, Seoul, KR, 03127
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

We are the global integrated logistics company that provides the utmost services through over a hundred vessels, the networks connecting the world, and our professional experts. As your friendly partner, we constantly strive to grow as a global shipping leader.

NAICS: 483
NAICS Definition: Water Transportation
Employees: 3,275
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Ballindamm 25, Hamburg, DE, 20095
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

About Hapag-Lloyd With a fleet of 313 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 around 14,000 employees and 400 offices in 140 countries. Hapag-Lloyd has a container capacity of 3.7 million TEU – including one of the largest and most modern fleets of reefer containers. A total of 133 liner services worldwide ensure fast and reliable connections between more than 600 ports on all the continents. In the Terminal & Infrastructure segment, Hapag-Lloyd has equity stakes in 21 terminals in Europe, Latin America, the United States, India and North Africa. Around 3,000 employees are assigned to the Terminal & Infrastructure segment and provide complementary logistics services at selected locations in addition to the terminal activities. Disclaimer This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such statements are based on a number of assumptions, estimates, projections or plans that are inherently subject to significant risks, uncertainties and contingencies. Actual results can differ materially from those anticipated in the Company’s forward-looking statements.

NAICS: 483
NAICS Definition: Water Transportation
Employees: 14,724
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hmmofficial.jpeg
HMM
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hapag-lloyd-ag.jpeg
Hapag-Lloyd AG
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
HMM
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hapag-Lloyd AG
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HMM in 2025.

Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hapag-Lloyd AG in 2025.

Incident History — HMM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HMM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Hapag-Lloyd AG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hmmofficial.jpeg
HMM
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2021
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2010
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: spear-phishing, exploitation of known vulnerabilities
Motivation: data theft (documents, email credentials, network access passwords) for espionage purposes
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hapag-lloyd-ag.jpeg
Hapag-Lloyd AG
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: email (malicious hyperlinks)
Motivation: data theft (personal data)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Hapag-Lloyd AG company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to HMM company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

HMM company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Hapag-Lloyd AG company.

In the current year, Hapag-Lloyd AG company and HMM company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Hapag-Lloyd AG company nor HMM company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Hapag-Lloyd AG company nor HMM company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Both Hapag-Lloyd AG company and HMM company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither HMM company nor Hapag-Lloyd AG company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither HMM company nor Hapag-Lloyd AG company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Hapag-Lloyd AG company employs more people globally than HMM company, reflecting its scale as a Maritime Transportation.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HMM nor Hapag-Lloyd AG holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L