Comparison Overview

Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland

VS

Volvo Cars

Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland

2550 Interstate Dr, None, Lakeland, Florida, US, 33805
Last Update: 2025-12-19

Lakeland Florida, Land Rover and Jaguar Sales and Service, Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland sells and services Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in the greater Lakeland area.

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 16
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Volvo Cars

Assar Gabrielssons väg, Göteborg, SE
Last Update: 2025-12-18
Between 750 and 799

Everything we do starts with people. Our purpose is to provide freedom to move, in a personal, sustainable and safe way. We are committed to simplifying our customers’ lives by offering better technology solutions that improve their impact on the world and bringing the most advanced mobility innovations to protect them, their loved ones and the people around them. Volvo Cars’ continued success is the result of a collaborative, diverse, and inclusive working environment. The people of Volvo Cars are committed to making a difference in our world. Today, we are one of the most well-known and respected car brands, with over 40,000 employees across the globe. We believe in bringing out the best in each other and harnessing the true power of people. At Volvo Cars your career is designed around your talents and aspirations so you can reach your full potential. Join us on a journey of a lifetime as we create safety, autonomous driving and electrification technologies of tomorrow. Read about our privacy policy here: http://volvoca.rs/privacy

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 23,024
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jaguarlandroverlakeland.jpeg
Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland
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/volvocars.jpeg
Volvo Cars
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
Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Volvo Cars
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland has 47.06% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Volvo Cars in 2025.

Incident History — Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Volvo Cars (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Volvo Cars cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jaguarlandroverlakeland.jpeg
Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Motivation: Data Theft, Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/volvocars.jpeg
Volvo Cars
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Database access, CICD access, Atlassian access, Domain access, WiFi hotspots and logins, Auth bearers, API access, PAC security access
Motivation: Monetary gain through data sale
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Volvo Cars company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland and Volvo Cars have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company has reported more cyber incidents than Volvo Cars company.

Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Volvo Cars company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Volvo Cars company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Volvo Cars company nor Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company nor Volvo Cars company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Volvo Cars company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company.

Volvo Cars company employs more people globally than Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland company, reflecting its scale as a Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jaguar Land Rover Lakeland nor Volvo Cars holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Versions starting with 0.211.0 and prior to 1.120.4, 1.121.1, and 1.122.0 contain a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in their workflow expression evaluation system. Under certain conditions, expressions supplied by authenticated users during workflow configuration may be evaluated in an execution context that is not sufficiently isolated from the underlying runtime. An authenticated attacker could abuse this behavior to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the n8n process. Successful exploitation may lead to full compromise of the affected instance, including unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification of workflows, and execution of system-level operations. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.120.4, 1.121.1, and 1.122.0. Users are strongly advised to upgrade to a patched version, which introduces additional safeguards to restrict expression evaluation. If upgrading is not immediately possible, administrators should consider the following temporary mitigations: Limit workflow creation and editing permissions to fully trusted users only; and/or deploy n8n in a hardened environment with restricted operating system privileges and network access to reduce the impact of potential exploitation. These workarounds do not fully eliminate the risk and should only be used as short-term measures.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

FastAPI Users allows users to quickly add a registration and authentication system to their FastAPI project. Prior to version 15.0.2, the OAuth login state tokens are completely stateless and carry no per-request entropy or any data that could link them to the session that initiated the OAuth flow. `generate_state_token()` is always called with an empty `state_data` dict, so the resulting JWT only contains the fixed audience claim plus an expiration timestamp. On callback, the library merely checks that the JWT verifies under `state_secret` and is unexpired; there is no attempt to match the state value to the browser that initiated the OAuth request, no correlation cookie, and no server-side cache. Any attacker can hit `/authorize`, capture the server-generated state, finish the upstream OAuth flow with their own provider account, and then trick a victim into loading `.../callback?code=<attacker_code>&state=<attacker_state>`. Because the state JWT is valid for any client for \~1 hour, the victim’s browser will complete the flow. This leads to login CSRF. Depending on the app’s logic, the login CSRF can lead to an account takeover of the victim account or to the victim user getting logged in to the attacker's account. Version 15.0.2 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

FileZilla Client 3.63.1 contains a DLL hijacking vulnerability that allows attackers to execute malicious code by placing a crafted TextShaping.dll in the application directory. Attackers can generate a reverse shell payload using msfvenom and replace the missing DLL to achieve remote code execution when the application launches.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
Description

LDAP Tool Box Self Service Password 1.5.2 contains a password reset vulnerability that allows attackers to manipulate HTTP Host headers during token generation. Attackers can craft malicious password reset requests that generate tokens sent to a controlled server, enabling potential account takeover by intercepting and using stolen reset tokens.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
Description

Kimai 1.30.10 contains a SameSite cookie vulnerability that allows attackers to steal user session cookies through malicious exploitation. Attackers can trick victims into executing a crafted PHP script that captures and writes session cookie information to a file, enabling potential session hijacking.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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