Comparison Overview

Panasonic North America

VS

Signify

Panasonic North America

2 Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ, US, 07102
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Panasonic is a leading technology provider of electric batteries and consumer lifestyle technologies, as well as innovative smart mobility, sustainable energy, and integrated supply chain solutions. Throughout Panasonic’s 100-year history, one of our guiding principles has always been to contribute to society by improving people’s lives and making the world a better place. The goal? To fulfill our Founder’s vision of making today better than yesterday, tomorrow better than today by empowering people to live better lives and creating a brighter future for everyone. Learn more about Panasonic’s technologies and solutions at https://na.panasonic.com.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 11,446
Subsidiaries: 14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Signify

High Tech Campus 48, Eindhoven, North Brabant, NL, 5656 AE
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Signify (Euronext: LIGHT Signify is the world leader in lighting for professionals and consumers. We unlock the extraordinary potential of light for brighter lives and a better world. Our global portfolio of brands deliver advanced products, connected systems and services, designed to enhance well-being and performance, to elevate experiences and advance sustainability. In 2024, we had sales of EUR 6.1 billion, approximately 29,000 employees and a presence in over 70 countries. We are featured in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index and hold the EcoVadis Platinum rating. News and updates from Signify can be found in the Newsroom, on LinkedIn and Instagram. Information for investors is located on the Investor Relations page.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 12,076
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/panasonic-northamerica.jpeg
Panasonic North America
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/signifycompany.jpeg
Signify
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Panasonic North America
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Signify
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Panasonic North America in 2026.

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Signify in 2026.

Incident History — Panasonic North America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panasonic North America cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Signify (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Signify cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/panasonic-northamerica.jpeg
Panasonic North America
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Misconfigured DNS CNAME records
Motivation: Spread malware and perpetrate online scams
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/signifycompany.jpeg
Signify
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Panasonic North America company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Signify company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Panasonic North America company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Signify company has not reported any.

In the current year, Signify company and Panasonic North America company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Panasonic North America company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Signify company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Panasonic North America company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Signify company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Signify company nor Panasonic North America company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Panasonic North America company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Signify company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Panasonic North America company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Signify company.

Signify company employs more people globally than Panasonic North America company, reflecting its scale as a Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Panasonic North America nor Signify holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N