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

Comparison Overview

Kuehne+NagelKuehne+Nagel
VS
CMA CGMCMA CGM
Kuehne+Nagel

Kuehne+Nagel

Kuehne + Nagel, Schindellegi, 8834, CH

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.kuehne-nagel.com
798/1000Fair

With more than 82,000 employees at almost 1,300 sites in close to 100 countries, the Kuehne+Nagel Group is one of the world's leading logistics providers. Headquartered in Switzerland, Kuehne+Nagel is listed in the Swiss blue-chip stock market index, the SMI. The Grou...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:50,462
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

4, Quai d'arenc, Marseille, 13002, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cma-cgm.com
766/1000Fair

The CMA CGM Group is a global player in sea, land, air and logistics solutions, true to its corporate Purpose, "We imagine better ways to serve a world in motion". Present in 177 countries, it employs 160,000 people, of which nearly 6,000 in Marseilles where its head o...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:30,339
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kuehne+Nagel

Kuehne+Nagel

-
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
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kuehne+Nagel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CMA CGM in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Kuehne+Nagel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kuehne+Nagel 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 - CMA CGM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CMA CGM 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...
Kuehne+Nagel

Kuehne+Nagel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CMA330092125
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CMA642092025
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CMA840092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8