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

Comparison Overview

PACCAR PartsPACCAR Parts
VS
UPSUPS
PACCAR Parts

PACCAR Parts

750 Houser Way N., Renton, WA, 98057, US

Last Update: 21/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.paccarparts.com/
753/1000Fair

PACCAR Parts supports fleets of all sizes with industry-leading aftermarket transportation solutions. PACCAR Parts operates a global network of 20 parts distribution centers that offer aftermarket parts sales support to DAF, Kenworth and Peterbilt dealerships and TRP st...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:842
Subsidiaries:34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UPS

UPS

55 Glenlake Parkway, NE, Atlanta, 30328, US

Last Update: 25/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://about.ups.com/
800/1000Good

Operating in more than 200 countries and territories, we’re committed to moving our world forward by delivering what matters. Beginning as a small messenger service, UPS was started by two enterprising teenagers and a $100 loan. Now, we’re almost 500,000 UPSers strong, ...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:182,515
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PACCAR Parts

PACCAR Parts

-
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
UPS

UPS

-
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 Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PACCAR Parts in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - PACCAR Parts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PACCAR Parts 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 - UPS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UPS 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...
PACCAR Parts

PACCAR Parts

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UPS

UPS

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LHDUPS1784960664
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
UPS134025623

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9