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

Comparison Overview

LDLCLDLC
VS
Samsung MobileSamsung Mobile
LDLC

LDLC

2 rue des érables, None, Limonest Cedex, Rhône, FR, 69578

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.groupe-ldlc.com/
699/1000Weak

Founded in 1996, Groupe LDLC is today the leader in computer and high-tech e-commerce in France. With 10 brands and 6 online stores, the e-commerce pioneer combines activities in the fields of computers, high-tech, home, childcare and education. Groupe LDLC employs near...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:635
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Samsung Mobile

Samsung Mobile

DongSuwon P.O.BOX 105, 416, Maetan-3dong, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, KR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
745/1000Moderate

Samsung Mobile is at the forefront of mobile intelligence, shaping the future with Galaxy AI. With the next evolution of Galaxy AI, we are making lives simpler–reducing stress, creating more time, and getting the help you need without even having to ask. In this era of...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:19,542
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LDLC

LDLC

-
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
Samsung Mobile

Samsung Mobile

-
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 Consumer Electronics Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LDLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Electronics Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Samsung Mobile in 2026.

Incidents

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

LDLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Samsung Mobile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung Mobile 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...
LDLC

LDLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LDL705082325
Samsung Mobile

Samsung Mobile

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM1862118110825
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM301050625
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM5892158110825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19917
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in code-projects Online Food Order System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file delete_food_items1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument checkbox can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-74767
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its handling of DAA (Direct Access Archive) files. When extracting the internal ISO image from a DAA archive, compressed chunks were decompressed using zlib.decompress() without enforcing a limit on the resulting uncompressed data. An attacker able to submit a crafted DAA file containing highly compressed data could cause Pandora to decompress a relatively small input into a very large amount of data in memory. Because the decompressed chunks are accumulated to construct the internal ISO image, this could result in excessive memory consumption and potentially CPU exhaustion, causing the extraction worker to become unresponsive, terminate, or affect the availability of the Pandora service. The patch introduces bounded decompression using decompressobj().decompress() with max_extracted_filesize, verifies the cumulative size of decompressed chunks, and raises a dedicated ZipBomb exception when the configured limit is exceeded. Pandora then aborts extraction and reports the file as too large.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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-2026-74764
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a path traversal vulnerability in its TAR archive extraction functionality. When processing a submitted TAR archive, the extractor passed archive member names directly to Python's tarfile.TarFile.extract() without applying an extraction filter. An attacker able to submit a specially crafted TAR archive containing malicious member paths, such as paths using ../ sequences or absolute paths, could cause extracted files to be written outside the intended extraction directory. This may allow the attacker to overwrite files accessible to the Pandora worker process and could potentially result in application compromise, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service depending on the files targeted and the privileges of the Pandora process. The vulnerability is corrected by using Python's filter='data' extraction filter, which rejects or sanitizes dangerous TAR members, including paths that escape the destination directory and unsafe link targets. The weakness corresponds to MITRE's general path traversal category, which includes archive extraction cases where attacker-controlled filenames cause files to be written outside the intended directory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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-2026-73055
SUMMARY

Shescape before 2.1.15 (and 3.0.0 before 3.0.2) fails to properly escape tilde (~) characters in assignment contexts on Unix systems where the shell is explicitly configured to "sh" or true and /bin/sh points to BusyBox. Using the escape and escapeAll APIs with untrusted input in an assignment prefixed to a command, an attacker can inject a tilde payload to disclose the user's home directory location and, depending on usage, alter the location on which a command operates.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-73054
SUMMARY

SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the WebSocket endpoint caused by differential parsing of query parameters between authentication exemption and session quarantine checks. Unauthenticated attackers can craft a malicious WebSocket URI with duplicated query parameters to bypass access auth code validation and receive the live kernel event stream including document identifiers, titles, and operation logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9