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

Comparison Overview

MSC Mediterranean Shipping CompanyMSC Mediterranean Shipping Company
VS
AramexAramex
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company

12-14 Chemin Rieu, Geneva, 1208, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.msc.com
782/1000Fair

MSC is a privately owned global shipping company founded in 1970 by Gianluigi Aponte. As one of the world’s leading container shipping lines with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, MSC operates in over 675 offices across more than 155 countries worldwide with over 200...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:35,066
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Aramex

Aramex

Dubai Logistics City, Dubai, AE, 3841

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aramex.com
792/1000Fair

Founded in 1982, Aramex has emerged as a global leader in logistics and transportation, renowned for its innovative services tailored to businesses and consumers. As a listed company on the Dubai Financial Market (since 2005) and headquartered in the UAE, our strategic ...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:20,257
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company

-
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
Aramex

Aramex

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramex in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Aramex 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...
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GNVMSC1765979891
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MSC1772094527
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MSC327092125
Aramex

Aramex

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2