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

Comparison Overview

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)
VS
Tata GroupTata Group
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

N/A

Last Update: 13/03/2026

View Profile
746/1000Moderate

The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) is one of the bureaus of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) of Japan. JCAB is responsible for the maintenance of airports, the safety of air transportation and the improvement of user convenience, an...

NAICS:92111
NAICS Definition:Executive Offices
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Group

Tata Group

Bombay House, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tata.com
780/1000Fair

Founded by Jamsetji Tata in 1868, the Tata group is a global enterprise headquartered in India. The group operates in more than 100 countries across six continents with a mission 'To improve the quality of life of the communities we serve globally, through long-term sta...

NAICS:92111
NAICS Definition:Executive Offices
Employees:1,017,747
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

-
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
Tata Group

Tata Group

-
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 Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Group has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) 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 - Tata Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Group 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...
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Group

Tata Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TATRED1782606562
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MAR1193411110425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA