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

Comparison Overview

Imperial Brands PLCImperial Brands PLC
VS
Arçelik TürkiyeArçelik Türkiye
Imperial Brands PLC

Imperial Brands PLC

121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, BS3 2LL, GB

Last Update: 10/08/2026

View Profile
809/1000Good

We're a truly international company driven by a strong challenger culture. An inclusive, innovative global FMCG business in 120 markets supported by over 25,000 employees generating £30bn revenue. We put our customers at the heart of what we do, evolving to needs & exp...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:8,782
Subsidiaries:11
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
Imperial Brands PLC

Imperial Brands PLC

-
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 Imperial Brands PLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arçelik Türkiye in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Imperial Brands PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Imperial Brands PLC 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...
Imperial Brands PLC

Imperial Brands PLC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Arçelik Türkiye

Arçelik Türkiye

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9