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

Comparison Overview

Panther Premium LogisticsPanther Premium Logistics
VS
Transport for NSWTransport for NSW
Panther Premium Logistics

Panther Premium Logistics

84 Medina Road, Medina, OH, 44256, US

Last Update: 04/02/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Panther Premium Logistics®, a service of ArcBest®, delivers time-sensitive, mission-critical freight with speed and precision — solving even the toughest shipping and logistics challenges. The Panther network is one of the largest, most diverse ground expedite fleets in...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:708
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Transport for NSW

Transport for NSW

Multiple locations , Multiple locations across the state, AU

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

We’re an innovative NSW government organisation comprised of a network of agencies and divisions that keep the state moving. Our focus is on delivering safe, reliable and integrated transport networks for everyone. With over 28,000 team members, we’re committed to incl...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:18,452
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Panther Premium Logistics

Panther Premium Logistics

-
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
Transport for NSW

Transport for NSW

-
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 Panther Premium Logistics in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Transport for NSW in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Panther Premium Logistics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Panther Premium Logistics 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 - Transport for NSW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transport for NSW 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...
Panther Premium Logistics

Panther Premium Logistics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Transport for NSW

Transport for NSW

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TRA303092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2