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

Comparison Overview

Scania JapanScania Japan
VS
ContinentalContinental
Scania Japan

Scania Japan

4-4-20, Shiba,, Minato-Ku, 108-0014, JP

Last Update: 13/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.scania.com/jp
745/1000Moderate

Scania is a global manufacturer of heavy trucks, buses, and engines headquartered in Södertälje, Sweden. With more than130 years of history, we now employ around 60,000 people across more than 100 countries, engaged in research and development, production, sales, and af...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:35
Subsidiaries:66
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Continental

Continental

Continental-Plaza 1, Hannover, Lower Saxony, DE, 30175

Last Update: 20/09/2026

View Profile
448/1000Critical

Continental is a leading tire manufacturer and industry specialist that develops and produces safe and convenient solutions for automotive manufacturers as well as industrial and end customers worldwide. Founded in 1871, the company generated sales of €19.7 billion in 2...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:64,210
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Scania Japan

Scania Japan

-
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
Continental

Continental

-
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 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Scania Japan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Continental has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Scania Japan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Scania Japan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Continental 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...
Scania Japan

Scania Japan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Continental

Continental

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON1768059238
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FRACONBLA1766997330
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CON2135181122

FAQ

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