Comparison Overview

Iveco Group

VS

Continental

Iveco Group

Via Puglia 35, Torino, 10156, IT
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

Iveco Group N.V. (MI: IVG) is the home of unique people and brands that power your business and mission to advance a more sustainable society. The seven brands are each a major force in its specific business: IVECO, a pioneering commercial vehicles brand that designs, manufactures, and markets heavy, medium, and light-duty trucks; FPT Industrial, a global leader in a vast array of advanced powertrain technologies in the agriculture, construction, marine, power generation, and commercial vehicles sectors; IVECO BUS and HEULIEZ, mass-transit and premium bus and coach brands; IDV, for highly specialised defence and civil protection equipment; ASTRA, a leader in large-scale heavy-duty quarry and construction vehicles; and IVECO CAPITAL, the financing arm which supports them all. At 31st December 2023, Iveco Group employed more than 36,000 people around the world and had 20 industrial sites and 31 R&D centres.

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 19,679
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Continental

Continental-Plaza 1, Hannover, Lower Saxony, DE, 30175
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Continental develops pioneering technologies and services for sustainable and connected mobility of people and their goods. Founded in 1871, the technology company offers safe, efficient, intelligent and affordable solutions for vehicles, machines, traffic and transportation. In 2023, Continental generated sales of €41.4 billion and currently employs around 200,000 people in 56 countries and markets. - 💛 Our Netiquette 💛 - The purpose of our LinkedIn page is to offer information about products and solutions at Continental, about our company culture and about our actions and initiatives. Moreover, we would like to provide you with quick and easy contact for your questions and comments related to the above mentioned topics. We emphasize the importance of an appropriate and respectful style when communicating on our page and therefore we established the following community rules: - Please post only comments related to the topics covered by this page. - Treat each user in a respectful way, as you expect to be treated as well. Abusive language, aggression and bullying are not allowed on our page. We therefore reserve the right to remove posted comments or any other content from this site: - which is offensive or abusive, - includes a commercial benefit or unwanted advertising messages, - violates the rights of third parties as well as the right to intellectual property, - which is irrelevant or misleading - which is a spam (repeated duplicate posting) - for any other reason deemed necessary to create a helpful and respectful community The comments on our contributions reflect the opinion of individual users. Our LinkedIn page is frequently checked for possible violations as mentioned above. However, ongoing inspection of the content of the posted comments is not reasonable without concrete indication of a (legal) violation as mentioned above. We will immediately remove the relevant links if they are found to violate any aforementioned law or principle.

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 68,795
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/iveco-group.jpeg
Iveco Group
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/continental.jpeg
Continental
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
Iveco Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Continental
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Iveco Group in 2026.

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Continental has 40.12% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Iveco Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Iveco Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Continental cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/iveco-group.jpeg
Iveco Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/continental.jpeg
Continental
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Phishing (Spam Bomb Attacks), Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain, Cybercrime
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Iveco Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Continental company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Continental company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Iveco Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Continental company has reported more cyber incidents than Iveco Group company.

Continental company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Iveco Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Continental company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Iveco Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Continental company nor Iveco Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Iveco Group company nor Continental company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Iveco Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Continental company.

Continental company employs more people globally than Iveco Group company, reflecting its scale as a Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Iveco Group nor Continental holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N