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

Comparison Overview

PHOENIX CONTACT OyPHOENIX CONTACT Oy
VS
SiemensSiemens
PHOENIX CONTACT Oy

PHOENIX CONTACT Oy

Niittytie 11, Vantaa, Finland 01300, FI

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
745/1000Moderate

Phoenix Contact on Saksassa perustettu maailmanlaajuinen markkinajohtaja, joka toimittaa tulevisuuden komponentteja, järjestelmiä ja ratkaisuja sähkötekniikan, elektroniikan ja automaation aloille. Follow: http://phoe.co/linkedin

NAICS:33325
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:40
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Siemens

Siemens

Werner-von-Siemens-Straße 1, Munich, 80333, DE

Last Update: 02/08/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.siemens.com
785/1000Fair

Siemens AG (Berlin and Munich) is a leading technology company focused on industry, infrastructure, mobility, and healthcare. The company’s purpose is to create technology to transform the everyday, for everyone. By combining the real and the digital worlds, Siemens emp...

NAICS:33325
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:277,193
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PHOENIX CONTACT Oy

PHOENIX CONTACT Oy

-
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
Siemens

Siemens

-
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 Automation Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PHOENIX CONTACT Oy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Automation Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Siemens has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PHOENIX CONTACT Oy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PHOENIX CONTACT Oy 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 - Siemens (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Siemens 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...
PHOENIX CONTACT Oy

PHOENIX CONTACT Oy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Siemens

Siemens

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SCHMAPSOUSIEROC1785680820
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIT1781000708
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
AQU1774671948

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8