Comparison Overview

Panasonic

VS

Eaton

Panasonic

Ooaza Kadoma, 1006, Kadoma-shi, Osaka, 571-8501, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-21

Founded in 1918, and today a global leader in developing innovative technologies and solutions for wide-ranging applications in the consumer electronics, housing, automotive, industry, communications, and energy sectors worldwide, the Panasonic Group switched to an operating company system on April 1, 2022 with Panasonic Holdings Corporation serving as a holding company and eight companies positioned under its umbrella. The Group reported consolidated net sales of 8,496.4 billion yen for the year ended March 31, 2024.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 28,891
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Eaton

30 Pembroke Road, Dublin, Ireland, 4, IE
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Eaton is an intelligent power management company dedicated to improving the quality of life and protecting the environment for people everywhere. We are guided by our commitment to do business right, to operate sustainably and to help our customers manage power ─ today and well into the future. By capitalizing on the global growth trends of electrification and digitalization, we’re accelerating the planet’s transition to renewable energy and helping to solve the world’s most urgent power management challenges. Eaton is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Employer. Eaton is committed to ensuring equal employment opportunities for all job applicants and employees. Employment decisions are based upon job-related reasons regardless of an applicant's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin, disability, marital status, genetic information, protected veteran status, or any other status protected by law.

NAICS: 335
NAICS Definition: Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees: 52,173
Subsidiaries: 1
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.jpeg
Panasonic
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/eaton.jpeg
Eaton
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
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Eaton
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Panasonic has 56.25% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

No incidents recorded for Eaton in 2025.

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

Panasonic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Eaton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/panasonic.jpeg
Panasonic
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/eaton.jpeg
Eaton
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Panasonic company has reported more cyber incidents than Eaton company.

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

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

Neither Eaton company nor Panasonic company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Panasonic company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Eaton company.

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

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Panasonic nor Eaton holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H