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

Comparison Overview

LUXSHARE-ICTLUXSHARE-ICT
VS
GarminGarmin
LUXSHARE-ICT

LUXSHARE-ICT

No.17 Kuiqing road, Qinghuang Industrial Zone,Qingxi Town, , Dongguan City, Guangdong, CN, 523660

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Luxshare is one of the world’s leading solution providers for key components, modules, and system assembly in Consumer Electronics, Communication & Data Centers, Automotive and Medical. We focus on technological innovations and efficiently meeting a variety of needs fro...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:823
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Garmin

Garmin

1200 E. 151st Street, Olathe, KS, US, 66062

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.garmin.com
782/1000Fair

WHERE DO WE START? How about Kansas City? That’s our home. That’s where Garmin put a stake in the ground in 1989. We’ve grown substantially over the years, offering diverse products and global reach in 5 diverse markets. But some things won’t ever change: Our entreprene...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:10,828
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LUXSHARE-ICT

LUXSHARE-ICT

-
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
Garmin

Garmin

-
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 Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LUXSHARE-ICT in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - LUXSHARE-ICT (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LUXSHARE-ICT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Garmin 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...
LUXSHARE-ICT

LUXSHARE-ICT

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GEENVILUX1769153015
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
APPLUXGEE1768835808
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NVILUX1768977485
Garmin

Garmin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GAR1777306152
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GAR201521222

FAQ

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