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

Comparison Overview

Long Island Rail RoadLong Island Rail Road
VS
Deutsche BahnDeutsche Bahn
Long Island Rail Road

Long Island Rail Road

Jamaica Station, Jamaica, NY, 11435, US

Last Update: 17/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mta.info/lirr
762/1000Fair

The Long Island Rail Road is the busiest commuter railroad in North America, carrying an average of 301,000 customers each weekday on 735 daily trains. Chartered on April 24, 1834, it is also the oldest railroad still operating under its original name. Thee LIRR system...

NAICS:482
NAICS Definition:Rail Transportation
Employees:1,976
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Deutsche Bahn

Deutsche Bahn

Potsdamer Platz 2, Berlin, 10785, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.deutschebahn.com
775/1000Fair

We are Deutsche Bahn. Millions of passengers travel with us every day, and we transport enormous volumes of goods – across Germany and throughout neighboring European countries. DB is one of Germany’s most diverse employers. With more than 230,000 employees in 20 count...

NAICS:482
NAICS Definition:Rail Transportation
Employees:27,394
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Long Island Rail Road

Long Island Rail Road

-
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
Deutsche Bahn

Deutsche Bahn

-
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 Long Island Rail Road in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

Deutsche Bahn has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Long Island Rail Road (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Long Island Rail Road cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Deutsche Bahn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Bahn 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...
Long Island Rail Road

Long Island Rail Road

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Deutsche Bahn

Deutsche Bahn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DEU1771986734

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8