Comparison Overview
Penta Teknoloji

Penta Teknoloji
Organize Sanayi Bolgesi 4. Cadde No:1, Istanbul, 34775, TR
Last Update: 26/01/2026
Everything started in a small office in 1990 for Penta Teknoloji. Today, Penta Teknoloji is one of the leading technology distribution companies in Turkey, delivering the most advanced global and local technology products rapidly, reliably and flawlessly. Ever since its...

Lenovo
8001 Development Dr, Morrisville, 27560, US
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Lenovo is a US$83 billion revenue global technology powerhouse, ranked #196 in the Fortune Global 500, and serving millions of customers every day in 180 markets. Guided by its vision of “Smarter Technology for All”, Lenovo is executing a Hybrid AI strategy that spans P...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Penta Teknoloji







Lenovo






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Penta Teknoloji in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Lenovo has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Penta Teknoloji (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Penta Teknoloji cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Lenovo (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lenovo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Penta Teknoloji

Lenovo
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.