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

Comparison Overview

Rockwell AutomationRockwell Automation
VS
Schneider ElectricSchneider Electric
Rockwell Automation

Rockwell Automation

1201 South Second Street, Milwaukee, 53204, US

Last Update: 26/08/2026

View Profile
641/1000Poor

At Rockwell Automation, we connect the imaginations of people with the potential of technology to expand what is humanly possible, making the world more intelligent, more connected and more productive. Throughout the world, our flagship Allen-Bradley® and Rockwell Sof...

NAICS:33325
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:22,734
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3
Schneider Electric

Schneider Electric

35 Rue Joseph Monier, Rueil Malmaison, 92506, FR

Last Update: 27/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.se.com/
497/1000Critical

Schneider Electric is a global energy technology leader, driving efficiency and sustainability by electrifying, automating, and digitalizing industries, businesses, and homes. Its technologies enable buildings, data centers, factories, infrastructure, and grids to ope...

NAICS:33325
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:88,380
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Rockwell Automation

Rockwell Automation

-
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
Schneider Electric

Schneider Electric

-
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)

Rockwell Automation has 319.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Automation Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Schneider Electric has 296.04% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Rockwell Automation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rockwell Automation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Schneider Electric (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Schneider Electric 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...
Rockwell Automation

Rockwell Automation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SIE1787180114
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MICROCSIESCH1787761681
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SCHMAPSOUSIEROC1785680820
Schneider Electric

Schneider Electric

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SIE1787180114
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SCHFOR1786559183
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MICROCSIESCH1787761681

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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