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

Comparison Overview

Navico GroupNavico Group
VS
Tata ElectronicsTata Electronics
Navico Group

Navico Group

26125 N Riverwoods Blvd, Mettawa, Illinois, 60045, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.navico.com
732/1000Moderate

The world’s leading supplier of integrated systems and products to industries ranging from marine to recreational vehicle and beyond. Our portfolio is comprised of industry leading brands in power management, digital control & monitoring, networked devices, and marine e...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:1,442
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Bengaluru , IN

Last Update: 04/07/2026

View Profile
684/1000Weak

Tata Electronics is a prominent global player in the electronics manufacturing industry, with fast-emerging capabilities in Electronics Manufacturing Services, Semiconductor Assembly and Test, Semiconductor Foundry, and Design Services. Established in 2020 as a greenf...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:16,251
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Navico Group

Navico 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
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

-
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 Navico Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Electronics has 90.48% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Navico Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tata Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Electronics 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...
Navico Group

Navico Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NAV752072525
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TATWHA1783182289
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
APP1782203449

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8