Comparison Overview

Metro Transit

VS

RATPgroup

Metro Transit

560 Sixth Avenue North, Minneapolis, 55411-4398, US
Last Update: 2025-12-27
Between 750 and 799

Make a difference with a career at Metro Transit! Our diverse community and expanding economy depend on Metro Transit to help get people where they need to be. Be a part of this important work. Together we can help our region thrive. Metro Transit is a mobility leader for the Twin Cities, operating an integrated network of buses, light rail and commuter trains as well as resources for those who carpool, vanpool, or bike. As one of the country’s largest transit systems, Metro Transit is also developing a network of enhanced bus rapid transit (BRT) transitways. We offer a variety of careers and excellent benefits. Join our team as we build a stronger, better transit system: metrotransit.org.org/jobs Learn about our work: metrotransit.org Find us on social media: twitter.com/metrotransitmn facebook.com/metrotransitmn youtube.com/metrotransitmn instagram.com/metrotransitmn

NAICS: 4851
NAICS Definition: Urban Transit Systems
Employees: 1,774
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

RATPgroup

54 Quai de la Rapée PARIS, 75012, FR
Last Update: 2025-12-27
Between 750 and 799

The RATP Group is the world's third largest public transport company, carrying 12 million people every day in France and around the world. It boasts unrivalled experience in design, project management, operation and maintenance of all types of urban and suburban transport, making it an industry leader called upon around the globe for its expertise. The RATP Group already operates in 15 countries through 100 subsidiaries and is stepping up its international expansion through some major projects worldwide. The RATP Group is also a strong proponent of sustainable mobility. It has the know-how to meet new service quality challenges by anticipating new passenger expectations in terms of information, accessibility, safety, regularity and service innovation. The RATP Group at a glance: - 71,000 employees - Operations in 15 countries Specialisations: Operation, maintenance and engineering of passenger transport networks: urban and suburban transport (train, metro, tramway, bus)

NAICS: 4851
NAICS Definition: Urban Transit Systems
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metro-transit.jpeg
Metro Transit
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ratp.jpeg
RATPgroup
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Metro Transit
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
RATPgroup
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Urban Transit Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metro Transit in 2025.

Incidents vs Urban Transit Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RATPgroup in 2025.

Incident History — Metro Transit (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metro Transit cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — RATPgroup (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RATPgroup cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metro-transit.jpeg
Metro Transit
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ratp.jpeg
RATPgroup
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

RATPgroup company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Metro Transit company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Metro Transit company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas RATPgroup company has not reported any.

In the current year, RATPgroup company and Metro Transit company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither RATPgroup company nor Metro Transit company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither RATPgroup company nor Metro Transit company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Metro Transit company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while RATPgroup company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Metro Transit company nor RATPgroup company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Metro Transit company nor RATPgroup company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

RATPgroup company employs more people globally than Metro Transit company, reflecting its scale as a Urban Transit Services.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Metro Transit nor RATPgroup holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

In GnuPG through 2.4.8, if a signed message has \f at the end of a plaintext line, an adversary can construct a modified message that places additional text after the signed material, such that signature verification of the modified message succeeds (although an "invalid armor" message is printed during verification). This is related to use of \f as a marker to denote truncation of a long plaintext line.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
Description

A vulnerability has been found in jackq XCMS up to 3fab5342cc509945a7ce1b8ec39d19f701b89261. Affected is the function Upload of the file Admin/Home/Controller/ProductImageController.class.php of the component Backend. Such manipulation of the argument File leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product takes the approach of rolling releases to provide continious delivery. Therefore, version details for affected and updated releases are not available. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
Description

In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1 when using the PDO PostgreSQL driver with PDO::ATTR_EMULATE_PREPARES enabled, an invalid character sequence (such as \x99) in a prepared statement parameter may cause the quoting function PQescapeStringConn to return NULL, leading to a null pointer dereference in pdo_parse_params() function. This may lead to crashes (segmentation fault) and affect the availability of the target server.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.2
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

In PHP versions:8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1, a heap buffer overflow occurs in array_merge() when the total element count of packed arrays exceeds 32-bit limits or HT_MAX_SIZE, due to an integer overflow in the precomputation of element counts using zend_hash_num_elements(). This may lead to memory corruption or crashes and affect the integrity and availability of the target server.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Description

In PHP versions:8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1, the getimagesize() function may leak uninitialized heap memory into the APPn segments (e.g., APP1) when reading images in multi-chunk mode (such as via php://filter). This occurs due to a bug in php_read_stream_all_chunks() that overwrites the buffer without advancing the pointer, leaving tail bytes uninitialized. This may lead to information disclosure of sensitive heap data and affect the confidentiality of the target server.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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