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

Comparison Overview

Fugro RailData®Fugro RailData®
VS
Parker HannifinParker Hannifin
Fugro RailData®

Fugro RailData®

Goeman Borgesiuslaan 77, Utrecht, 3515ET, NL

Last Update: 14/12/2025

View Profile
746/1000Moderate

Fugro RailData® provides essential infrastructure information for rail professionals creating a 3D virtual model of the railway corridor to help you deliver efficiencies in asset management and engineering.

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

6035 Parkland Blvd, Cleveland, 44124, US

Last Update: 23/09/2026

View Profile
612/1000Poor

Parker Hannifin is a Fortune 250 global leader in motion and control technologies. Guided by our purpose—“Enabling Engineering Breakthroughs that Lead to a Better Tomorrow”—we help customers solve complex challenges through expertise in electromechanical systems, filtra...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:29,965
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fugro RailData®

Fugro RailData®

-
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
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fugro RailData® in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Parker Hannifin in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fugro RailData® (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fugro RailData® 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 - Parker Hannifin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Parker Hannifin 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...
Fugro RailData®

Fugro RailData®

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PAR0432504110325
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR134826522
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR448072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA