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

Comparison Overview

London North Eastern RailwayLondon North Eastern Railway
VS
AmtrakAmtrak
London North Eastern Railway

London North Eastern Railway

25 Skeldergate, York, England, GB

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.lner.co.uk
575/1000Very Poor

London North Eastern Railway is one of the UK’s leading long-distance train operators. Our services link London King’s Cross directly with many destinations in the East Midlands, Yorkshire, North East England and Scotland operating on a 936 mile route. We operate 155 s...

NAICS:482
NAICS Definition:Rail Transportation
Employees:1,113
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Amtrak

Amtrak

1 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, 20002, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.amtrak.com
435/1000Critical

Moving America Where it wants to go. We are not just a railroad; we are a company that moves people. With 21,000 route miles in 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian provinces, Amtrak operates more than 300 trains each day – at speeds up to 150 mph – t...

NAICS:482
NAICS Definition:Rail Transportation
Employees:13,811
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
London North Eastern Railway

London North Eastern Railway

-
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
Amtrak

Amtrak

-
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 Rail Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for London North Eastern Railway in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

Amtrak has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - London North Eastern Railway (X = Date, Y = Severity)

London North Eastern Railway cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Amtrak (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amtrak 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...
London North Eastern Railway

London North Eastern Railway

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LON0893608111125
🔒 Incident : Breach
LON5292952101625
🔒 Incident : Breach
LON3852638100225
Amtrak

Amtrak

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AMT1776407118
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCGSUBAMTADTHALPANCARBET1785169886
🔒 Incident : Breach
23A1764346412

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90647
SUMMARY

ASE/Kalkitech ASE2000 V2 Communication Test Set 2.35 through 2.37 on Windows contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the IEC 60870-5-104 TLS client (Task Mode). This allows a network-positioned attacker to bypass certificate validation via a certificate with multiple simultaneous faults, enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack on protected communications.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-90487
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.4.2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file xxl-job-admin/src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/business/controller/JobGroupController.java. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-90486
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in openstatusHQ openstatus up to f04c827112f30a11d571ebdad3892826034d6265. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file apps/status-page/src/lib/proxy/resolve-custom-domain-rewrite.ts. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The identifier of the patch is 86f370c9c20074c3c3fdec53a359874b8e670fd4. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. This issue got fixed with a silent patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-79300
SUMMARY

SEP sesam before 5.2.0.24 mishandles User Authorization with MFA. If AD authentication is configured and MFA is enforced, an attacker can create a second OTP access capability. SEP sesam and Active Directory handle username capitalization differently, which may allow multiple SEP sesam user accounts to be created for the same Active Directory (AD) account. Active Directory treats usernames as case-insensitive, while SEP sesam distinguishes between different letter casing. As a result, the same AD user can be represented by multiple SEP sesam user accounts that differ only in username capitalization. When Active Directory authentication is configured and multi-factor authentication (MFA) is enforced, this behavior may allow an additional OTP Authenticator to be registered for the same AD account, reducing the effectiveness of MFA protection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90485
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in IOBit Uninstaller 15.5.0.11. Affected by this issue is the function sub_11838 of the file IURegistryFilter.sys of the component IOCTL Dispatch Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack requires local access. The exploit has been published and may be used. Identical IURegistryFilter.sys ships across multiple IObit families. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8