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

Comparison Overview

OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.
VS
Volvo GroupVolvo Group
OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.

OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.

Atatürk Caddesi No:6 , Sakarya, undefined, 54580, TR

Last Update: 24/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.otokar.com.tr
762/1000Fair

Koç Topluluğu şirketlerinden Otokar, 1963'ten bu yana kendi teknoloji, tasarım ve uygulamaları ile müşterilerinin ihtiyaçlarına uygun özel çözümler sunuyor. Sakarya’daki 552.000 m²’lik alana kurulu fabrikasında 4000’den fazla çalışanıyla faaliyet gösteriyor.   Otokar, ...

NAICS:336
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:2,039
Subsidiaries:53
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Volvo Group

Volvo Group

Gropegårdsgatan 2, Göteborg, SE, 417 15

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
221/1000Critical

The Volvo Group is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of trucks, buses, construction equipment and marine and industrial engines. The Group also provides complete solutions for financing and service. The Volvo Group, with its headquarters in Gothenburg, employs ab...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:78,332
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.

OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.

-
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
Volvo Group

Volvo 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 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Volvo Group has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş. 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 - Volvo Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Volvo Group 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...
OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.

OTOKAR Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Volvo Group

Volvo Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CONVOL1770724357
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
VOL2832328091725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
VOL2892928092525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA