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

Comparison Overview

RAWRAW
VS
ArvatoArvato
RAW

RAW

A. Vaucampslaan, Huizingen, 1654, BE

Last Update: 13/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.rawerp.com/nl
752/1000Fair

Real Applied Wholesale (RAW) is een geïntegreerd informatiesysteem waarbij ERP en WMS naadloos worden gecombineerd met uitgebreide functies voor financieel beheer, business intelligence, e-commerce, documentmanagement en CRM. Het is een totaaloplossing met toegepaste fu...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Arvato

Arvato

Reinhard-Mohn-Str., Gütersloh, DE, 33333

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://arvato.com/
775/1000Fair

𝗪𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 Logistics seems so simple – just goods in, goods out. For us there is so much more to it. By combining deep industry expertise with the right technologies, we develop innovative supply chain management and e-c...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:12,497
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
RAW

RAW

-
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
Arvato

Arvato

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RAW in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arvato in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - RAW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RAW cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Arvato (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arvato cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
RAW

RAW

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Arvato

Arvato

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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