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

Comparison Overview

LISI GROUPLISI GROUP
VS
Tata ElectronicsTata Electronics
LISI GROUP

LISI GROUP

6, Rue Juvenal Viellard, Grandvillars, 90600, FR

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.lisi-group.com/
676/1000Weak

LISI is a global industrial group specializing in the manufacture of assembly solutions and high value-added components for the aerospace, automotive and medical sectors. A partner to the world's leading players and driven by its long-term family values, LISI innovates ...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:138
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Bengaluru , IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
800/1000Good

Tata Electronics is a prominent global player in the electronics manufacturing industry, with fast-emerging capabilities in Electronics Manufacturing Services, Semiconductor Assembly and Test, Semiconductor Foundry, and Design Services. Established in 2020 as a greenf...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:16,251
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LISI GROUP

LISI GROUP

-
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
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

LISI GROUP has 66.67% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Electronics has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LISI GROUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LISI GROUP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tata Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Electronics 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...
LISI GROUP

LISI GROUP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
LIS1772469645
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
APP1782203449

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA