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
Samsung ElectronicsSamsung Electronics
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
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

129 Samsung-ro, Suwon-Si, 443-742, KR

Last Update: 02/08/2026

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

Samsung Electronics is a global leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people everywhere. Through relentless innovation and discovery, we are transforming the worlds of TVs, smartphones, wearable devices, tablets, digital appliances, network systems, medica...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:167,492
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
5

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
Samsung Electronics

Samsung 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 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)

Samsung Electronics 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 - Samsung Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung 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...
LUXSHARE-ICT

LUXSHARE-ICT

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GEENVILUX1769153015
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
APPLUXGEE1768835808
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NVILUX1768977485
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MERCHESAMCOMFOXATTFORTOY1781713752
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM5932959110525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DIM4992449100425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2