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

Comparison Overview

MAHLEMAHLE
VS
BYDBYD
MAHLE

MAHLE

Pragstrasse 26-46, Stuttgart, D-70376, DE

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

MAHLE is a leading international development partner and supplier to the automotive industry with customers in both passenger car and commercial vehicle sectors. Founded in 1920, the technology group is working on the climate-neutral mobility of tomorrow, with a focus o...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:24,857
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
BYD

BYD

No.3009, BYD Road, Pingshan, Shenzhen, 518118, CN

Last Update: 06/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.bydglobal.com
820/1000Good

Established in 1995, BYD is a top high-tech enterprise in China specializing in IT, automobile, and new energy.BYD is the largest supplier of rechargeable batteries in the globe, and has the largest market share for Nickel-cadmium batteries, handset Li-ion batteries, ce...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:17,661
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MAHLE

MAHLE

-
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
BYD

BYD

-
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 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MAHLE in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BYD in 2026.

Incidents

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

MAHLE 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 - BYD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BYD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
MAHLE

MAHLE

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BYD

BYD

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1