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

Comparison Overview

LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.
VS
VertivVertiv
LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.

LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.

10001 Sokak No: 9 A.O.S.B., Çiğli, İzmir, 35620, TR

Last Update: 21/01/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.lunatr.com
748/1000Moderate

Elektrik enerjisinin ve su tüketiminin kontrol edilmesi ve ölçülmesi amacıyla elektrik devrelerinin ve ürünlerinin dizaynı ve üretimiyle ilgili olan Luna, 1991 yılında İzmir’de kurulmuştur. Luna grup şirketleri, sayaçlarının dizaynı ve üretiminin yanında, sayaçlar aras...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:199
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vertiv

Vertiv

505 N. Cleveland Ave., Westerville, Columbus, OH, US, 43082

Last Update: 13/08/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.Vertiv.com
787/1000Fair

Vertiv is a global leader in critical digital infrastructure for applications in data centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial environments. As businesses, industries, and communities become more connected, we pioneer and deliver end-to-end power ...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:17,244
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.

LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.

-
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
Vertiv

Vertiv

-
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 Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Vertiv has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Vertiv 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...
LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.

LUNA Elektrik Elektronik San. Tic. A.Ş.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vertiv

Vertiv

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIEVERTRACARTRIDEL1786611575
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TRIVER1786618728

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9