Comparison Overview

Li Auto

VS

Scania Group

Li Auto

Number 11 of Wenliang Street, Shunyi District, Beijing, Beijing, CN, 101399
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

Founded on July. 1, 2015, Li Auto’s brand mission is to “Create a Mobile Home, Create Happiness”. We are dedicated to providing families with safer, more comfortable, and more convenient smart EVs through breakthrough innovations in products, technologies, and business models. By Oct. 18, 2024, Li Auto achieved the milestone of one million vehicle deliveries in just 58 months, setting a new record for the fastest one million deliveries in China’s luxury car market. We see cars evolving from transportation in the Industrial Age into spatial robots in the age of AI. And we fuse the physical and digital worlds through AI, turning limited car space into infinite experiences. Our goal isn’t just to transform the automotive industry through cutting-edge AI technologies, but also bring the benefits of AI to every family. Join us in pushing growth boundaries and realizing our vision of “Connecting physical and digital worlds to be a global AI leader”!

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 1,782
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Scania Group

Vagnmakarvägen 1, Södertälje, SE, SE-151 87
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

Scania is a world-leading provider of transport solutions committed to a better tomorrow. Our purpose is to drive the shift towards a sustainable transport system. In doing so, we are creating a world of mobility that’s better for business, society and our environment. Employing more than 50,000 people in about 100 countries, Scania’s research and development is concentrated in Sweden, while production takes place in Europe and South America.

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 38,365
Subsidiaries: 65
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/liauto.jpeg
Li Auto
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/scania.jpeg
Scania Group
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
Li Auto
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Scania Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Li Auto in 2026.

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Scania Group in 2026.

Incident History — Li Auto (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Li Auto cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Scania Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Scania Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/liauto.jpeg
Li Auto
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/scania.jpeg
Scania Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Credentials
Motivation: Extortion
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Li Auto company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Scania Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Scania Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Li Auto company has not reported any.

In the current year, Scania Group company and Li Auto company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Scania Group company nor Li Auto company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Scania Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Li Auto company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Scania Group company nor Li Auto company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Li Auto company nor Scania Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Scania Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Li Auto company.

Scania Group company employs more people globally than Li Auto company, reflecting its scale as a Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Li Auto nor Scania Group 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