Comparison Overview
LG Electronics Italia

LG Electronics Italia
Via Aldo Rossi, Milan, Lombardy, 20149, IT
Last Update: 20/04/2026
LG Electronics Inc. LG Electronics è leader e innovatore tecnologico a livello mondiale nel settore dell’elettronica di consumo con una presenza in quasi tutti i Paesi del mondo per un totale di oltre 75.000 dipendenti. Con un fatturato globale pari a 56 miliardi di dol...

Samsung Electronics
129 Samsung-ro, Suwon-Si, 443-742, KR
Last Update: 11/08/2026
Samsung Electronics is a global leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people everywhere. Through relentless innovation and discovery, we are transforming the worlds of TVs, smartphones, wearable devices, tablets, digital appliances, network systems, medica...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

LG Electronics Italia







Samsung Electronics






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for LG Electronics Italia in 2026.
Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
Samsung Electronics has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - LG Electronics Italia (X = Date, Y = Severity)
LG Electronics Italia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Samsung Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Samsung Electronics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

LG Electronics Italia

Samsung Electronics
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.