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 Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.
VS
SiemensSiemens
PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.

PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.

Kısıklı Mah. Hanım Seti Sok. No:38/A, İstanbul, Turkey 34692 , TR

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
747/1000Moderate

Phoenix Contact is a globally present, Germany-based market leader. Our group is synonymous with future-oriented components, systems, and solutions in the fields of electrical engineering, electronics, and automation. Follow: http://phoe.co/linkedin

NAICS:33325
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:41
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Siemens

Siemens

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

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.siemens.com
784/1000Fair

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:255,207
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.

PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.

-
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 Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Automation Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Siemens in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti. 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 Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.

PHOENIX CONTACT Elektronik Tic. Ltd. Şti.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Siemens

Siemens

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DIM4992449100425
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SIE903031625

FAQ

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