Comparison Overview

Lenovo

VS

Diebold Nixdorf

Lenovo

8001 Development Dr, None, Morrisville, NC, US, 27560
Last Update: 2025-12-19
Between 750 and 799

Lenovo is a US$69 billion revenue global technology powerhouse, ranked #196 in the Fortune Global 500, and serving millions of customers every day in 180 markets. Focused on a bold vision to deliver Smarter Technology for All, Lenovo has built on its success as the world’s largest PC company with a full-stack portfolio of AI-enabled, AI-ready, and AI-optimized devices (PCs, workstations, smartphones, tablets), infrastructure (server, storage, edge, high performance computing and software defined infrastructure), software, solutions, and services. Lenovo’s continued investment in world-changing innovation is building a more equitable, trustworthy, and smarter future for everyone, everywhere. Lenovo is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange under Lenovo Group Limited (HKSE: 992) (ADR: LNVGY). To find out more visit https://www.lenovo.com, and read about the latest news via our StoryHub at https://news.lenovo.com/. To learn more about our career opportunities, visit our careers page at http://jobs.lenovo.com/.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 0
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Diebold Nixdorf

350 Orchard Ave NE, North Canton, Ohio, 44720, US
Last Update: 2025-12-19
Between 750 and 799

We automate, digitize and transform the way people bank and shop. We offer proven expertise and comprehensive portfolios in cutting-edge product technology, multi-vendor software and service excellence for financial and retail customers. Consumer behavior is changing rapidly; people are empowered and connected and expect unprecedented service and convenience. The world is “always on” – a digital era requiring us to orchestrate touchpoints in ways that meet and exceed the 24/7 automation needs of the banking and retail worlds. Diebold Nixdorf employs approximately 21,000 employees in more than 130 countries worldwide. We are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “DBD.” Specialties: financial and retail self-service solutions, services, security solutions, software, cash management, branch and store transformation

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 19,828
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lenovo.jpeg
Lenovo
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/diebold.jpeg
Diebold Nixdorf
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
Lenovo
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Diebold Nixdorf
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

Lenovo has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Diebold Nixdorf in 2025.

Incident History — Lenovo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lenovo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Diebold Nixdorf (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Diebold Nixdorf cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lenovo.jpeg
Lenovo
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Malicious Prompt Injection (400-character payload)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: UEFI Secure Boot Bypass
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2019
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Alternate Data Streams (ADS)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/diebold.jpeg
Diebold Nixdorf
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Hard Drive Encryption Bypass
Motivation: Financial Data Breach, Unauthorized Cash Withdrawals
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Lenovo company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Diebold Nixdorf company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Lenovo company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Diebold Nixdorf company.

In the current year, Lenovo company has reported more cyber incidents than Diebold Nixdorf company.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf company nor Lenovo company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf company nor Lenovo company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Diebold Nixdorf company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Lenovo company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Lenovo company and Diebold Nixdorf company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lenovo company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Diebold Nixdorf company.

Diebold Nixdorf company employs more people globally than Lenovo company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lenovo nor Diebold Nixdorf holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

httparty is an API tool. In versions 0.23.2 and prior, httparty is vulnerable to SSRF. This issue can pose a risk of leaking API keys, and it can also allow third parties to issue requests to internal servers. This issue has been patched via commit 0529bcd.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

5ire is a cross-platform desktop artificial intelligence assistant and model context protocol client. In versions 0.15.2 and prior, an RCE vulnerability exists in useMarkdown.ts, where the markdown-it-mermaid plugin is initialized with securityLevel: 'loose'. This configuration explicitly permits the rendering of HTML tags within Mermaid diagram nodes. This issue has not been patched at time of publication.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

continuwuity is a Matrix homeserver written in Rust. Prior to version 0.5.0, this vulnerability allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to force the target server to cryptographically sign arbitrary membership events. The flaw exists because the server fails to validate the origin of a signing request, provided the event's state_key is a valid user ID belonging to the target server. This issue has been patched in version 0.5.0. A workaround for this issue involves blocking access to the PUT /_matrix/federation/v2/invite/{roomId}/{eventId} endpoint using the reverse proxy.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:L/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
Description

LangChain is a framework for building LLM-powered applications. Prior to @langchain/core versions 0.3.80 and 1.1.8, and prior to langchain versions 0.3.37 and 1.2.3, a serialization injection vulnerability exists in LangChain JS's toJSON() method (and subsequently when string-ifying objects using JSON.stringify(). The method did not escape objects with 'lc' keys when serializing free-form data in kwargs. The 'lc' key is used internally by LangChain to mark serialized objects. When user-controlled data contains this key structure, it is treated as a legitimate LangChain object during deserialization rather than plain user data. This issue has been patched in @langchain/core versions 0.3.80 and 1.1.8, and langchain versions 0.3.37 and 1.2.3

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

LangChain is a framework for building agents and LLM-powered applications. Prior to versions 0.3.81 and 1.2.5, a serialization injection vulnerability exists in LangChain's dumps() and dumpd() functions. The functions do not escape dictionaries with 'lc' keys when serializing free-form dictionaries. The 'lc' key is used internally by LangChain to mark serialized objects. When user-controlled data contains this key structure, it is treated as a legitimate LangChain object during deserialization rather than plain user data. This issue has been patched in versions 0.3.81 and 1.2.5.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N