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

Comparison Overview

Rhenus LogisticsRhenus Logistics
VS
Deutsche Post und DHLDeutsche Post und DHL
Rhenus Logistics

Rhenus Logistics

Rhenus-Platz 1, Holzwickede, D-59439, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.rhenus.group
714/1000Moderate

The Rhenus Group is one of the leading logistics specialists with global business operations and annual turnover amounting to EUR 8.2 billion. 41,000 employees work at 1,330 business sites in more than 70+ countries and develop innovative solutions along the complete su...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:14,822
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Deutsche Post und DHL

Deutsche Post und DHL

DE

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.deutschepost.de
772/1000Fair

Deutsche Post delivers mail and parcels in Germany. It is an expert provider of dialogue marketing and press distribution services as well as corporate communications solutions. We operate a nationwide transport and delivery network in Germany. We also deliver mail acr...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:11,764
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Rhenus Logistics

Rhenus Logistics

-
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
Deutsche Post und DHL

Deutsche Post und DHL

-
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 Rhenus Logistics in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Deutsche Post und DHL in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Rhenus Logistics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rhenus Logistics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Deutsche Post und DHL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Post und DHL 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...
Rhenus Logistics

Rhenus Logistics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
RHE517092125
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
RHE949092225
Deutsche Post und DHL

Deutsche Post und DHL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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