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

Comparison Overview

Kärcher South AfricaKärcher South Africa
VS
FinningFinning
Kärcher South Africa

Kärcher South Africa

2 N Rand Road, Hughes, Gauteng 1459, ZA

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.kaercher.com/za
749/1000Moderate

We offer cleaning systems, cleaning products and services for leisure, home, trade and industry with outstanding value for money. As leading innovators, we set standards in technology, service and design aimed at providing maximum benefit to our customers and meeting ...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:41
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Finning

Finning

CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.finning.com
771/1000Fair

Finning is the world's largest Caterpillar dealer delivering unrivalled service for over 90 years. We sell, rent and provide parts and service for equipment and engines to customers in various industries, including mining, construction, petroleum, forestry and a wide ra...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:10,704
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kärcher South Africa

Kärcher South Africa

-
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
Finning

Finning

-
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 Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kärcher South Africa in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Finning in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Kärcher South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kärcher South Africa 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 - Finning (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Finning 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...
Kärcher South Africa

Kärcher South Africa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Finning

Finning

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2