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

Comparison Overview

Moehwald GmbHMoehwald GmbH
VS
Johnson ControlsJohnson Controls
Moehwald GmbH

Moehwald GmbH

Michelinstraße 21, Homburg, 66424, DE

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://moehwald.de
745/1000Moderate

Die Moehwald GmbH entwickelt innovative Lösungen im Bereich Wasserstoff, Elektrolyse und nachhaltige Energieerzeugung, angepasst auf die individuellen Anforderungen unserer internationalen Kunden. Die Aktivitäten auf diesem Gebiet umfassen die Bereiche Brennstoffzellent...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:44
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Johnson Controls

Johnson Controls

Milwaukee, Cork, Ireland, IE, T12 X8N6

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

At Johnson Controls, we transform the environments where people live, work, learn and play. As the global leader in smart, healthy and sustainable buildings, our mission is to reimagine the performance of buildings to serve people, places and the planet. Building on ...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:60,211
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Moehwald GmbH

Moehwald GmbH

-
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
Johnson Controls

Johnson Controls

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Moehwald GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Johnson Controls in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Moehwald GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Moehwald GmbH 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 - Johnson Controls (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson Controls 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...
Moehwald GmbH

Moehwald GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Johnson Controls

Johnson Controls

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
JOH4502045100625
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JOH174511023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA