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

Comparison Overview

JabraJabra
VS
LG ElectronicsLG Electronics
Jabra

Jabra

Lautrupbjerg 7, Copenhagen, 2750, DK

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
766/1000Fair

Whether you’re training for your first marathon, learning Mandarin in your lunch breaks, or lounging on the couch in your PJs watching Sex and the City reruns (hey – we don’t judge), we love that you dance to the beat of your own drum.

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:1,918
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
LG Electronics

LG Electronics

20 Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 150-721, KR

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://globalcareers.lge.com
716/1000Moderate

Step into the innovative world of LG Electronics. As a global leader in technology, LG Electronics is dedicated to creating innovative solutions for a better life. Our brand promise, 'Life's Good', embodies our commitment to ensuring a happier, better life for all.    W...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:63,995
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Jabra

Jabra

-
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
LG Electronics

LG Electronics

-
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 Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jabra in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LG Electronics in 2026.

Incidents

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

Jabra cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - LG Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LG Electronics 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...
Jabra

Jabra

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRU1768529823
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRU1769118538
LG Electronics

LG Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LG-1232512111725
🔒 Incident : Breach
LGE2248222
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
LGE15121122

FAQ

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