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

Comparison Overview

Nano Magnetics LtdNano Magnetics Ltd
VS
Electrolux GroupElectrolux Group
Nano Magnetics Ltd

Nano Magnetics Ltd

N/A

Last Update: 04/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nanomagnetics.com
757/1000Fair

Nano Magnetics is a product innovation company specialized in magnets. Founded on the success of Nanodots® magnetic constructors, Nano's innovative products have been showcased in Hollywood, on the hit TV series Big Bang Theory and sold around the world. Nano Magnetic...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:2
Subsidiaries:65
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Electrolux Group

Electrolux Group

Electrolux - Stockholm, Stockholm, SE, SE-10545

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
805/1000Good

Electrolux Group is a leading global appliance company that has shaped living for the better for more than 100 years. We reinvent taste, care and wellbeing experiences for millions of people, always striving to be at the forefront of sustainability in society through ou...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:30,968
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Nano Magnetics Ltd

Nano Magnetics Ltd

-
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
Electrolux Group

Electrolux Group

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nano Magnetics Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Electrolux Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Nano Magnetics Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nano Magnetics Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Electrolux Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Electrolux Group 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...
Nano Magnetics Ltd

Nano Magnetics Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Electrolux Group

Electrolux Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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