Comparison Overview

LEONI

VS

PACCAR

LEONI

Marienstraße 5, Nürnberg, 90402, DE
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

LEONI is a global provider of products, solutions and services for energy and data management in the automotive industry. The group of companies has around 87,000 employees in 21 countries and generated consolidated sales of EUR 5 billion in 2024. The partnership between LEONI and Luxshare Group has been effective since mid-2025. LEONI's largest customer group comprises the global car, commercial vehicle and component supply industry. The company is one of the world's largest suppliers of complex wiring systems and customer-specific cable harnesses. It’s value chain also comprises related components, from development to production. As an innovation partner with distinctive development and systems expertise, LEONI supports its customers on the path to increasingly sustainable and connected mobility concepts, from autonomous driving to alternative drives as well as charging systems. To this end, LEONI develops wiring systems that reduce complexity and enable higher levels of automation through zonal architecture, for example. Imprint: https://www.leoni.com/en/imprint/ Privacy statement: https://www.leoni.com/en/data-protection/

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 20,077
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

PACCAR

777 106th Ave NE, Bellevue, WA, 98004, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 800 and 849

PACCAR is a global technology leader in the design, manufacture and customer support of premium light-, medium- and heavy-duty trucks under the Kenworth, Peterbilt and DAF nameplates. PACCAR also designs and manufactures advanced diesel engines, provides financial services, information technology, and distributes truck parts related to its principal business. Kenworth Truck Company builds premium commercial vehicles for sale in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Australia and for export throughout the world. Peterbilt Motors also designs, manufactures and distributes premium commercial vehicles in the US and Canada. DAF Trucks manufactures trucks in the Netherlands, Belgium, Brasil and the United Kingdom for sale throughout Western and Eastern Europe, and export to Asia, Africa, North and South America. PACCAR Parts operates a network of parts distribution centers offering aftermarket support to Kenworth, Peterbilt and DAF dealers and customers around the world. Aftermarket support includes customer call centers operating 24 hours a day throughout the year and technologically advanced systems to enhance inventory control and expedite order processing. PACCAR Financial Services provides finance, lease and insurance services to dealers and customers in more than 100 countries including a portfolio of more than 175,000 trucks and trailers and total assets in excess of $12 billion. The group includes PACCAR Leasing, a major full-service truck leasing company in North America, with a fleet of over 39,000 vehicles. Environmental responsibility is one of PACCAR’s core values. The company regularly develops new programs to help protect and preserve the environment and PACCAR has established ambitious goals to further reduce emissions and enhance fuel efficiency in its truck models.

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 18,469
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/leoni.jpeg
LEONI
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/paccar.jpeg
PACCAR
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
LEONI
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
PACCAR
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LEONI in 2026.

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PACCAR in 2026.

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

LEONI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

PACCAR cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/leoni.jpeg
LEONI
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/paccar.jpeg
PACCAR
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, PACCAR company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to LEONI company.

In the current year, PACCAR company and LEONI company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither PACCAR company nor LEONI company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither PACCAR company nor LEONI company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither PACCAR company nor LEONI company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LEONI company nor PACCAR company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

PACCAR company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LEONI company.

LEONI company employs more people globally than PACCAR company, reflecting its scale as a Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LEONI nor PACCAR holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N