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

Comparison Overview

SchenckSchenck
VS
SulzerSulzer
Schenck

Schenck

Landwehrstrasse 55. Darmstadt,  64293. Germany, Darmstadt, Hessen, 64293, DE

Last Update: 31/01/2026

View Profile
746/1000Moderate

Schenck RoTec - Passion for Balancing Schenck RoTec is the world market leader and global supplier of balancing technology solutions and has 17 subsidiaries and joint ventures with six production facilities worldwide. In addition, there are over 36 representatives and ...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:304
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sulzer

Sulzer

Neuwiesenstrasse 15, Winterthur, 8401, CH

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.sulzer.com
767/1000Fair

Sulzer is a global leader in critical applications for core infrastructure and processes for large essential industries around the world. We ensure the security, quality and durability of critical goods and services by supporting energy security, natural resource manage...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:10,639
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Schenck

Schenck

-
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
Sulzer

Sulzer

-
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 Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Schenck in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sulzer in 2026.

Incidents

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

Schenck 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 - Sulzer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sulzer 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...
Schenck

Schenck

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sulzer

Sulzer

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53646
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when a `ClientPasswordReset` record already exists for a client (from a previous unexpired reset request), subsequent calls to the `reset_password` guest API endpoint reuse the existing token instead of generating a new one. The 15-minute validity window is anchored to the first request's `created_at` timestamp, not the time of the most recent email. An attacker who obtained the original reset link remains able to use it even after the victim requests a new reset, because the original token is never invalidated or rotated. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Configure a reverse proxy (e.g., Nginx, Apache, Cloudflare) to apply per-IP rate limiting to the `/client/reset-password` endpoint to minimize the window of opportunity, and/or manually clear expired `client_password_reset` records from the database after a client reports a suspected compromise.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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
CVE-2026-53645
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow a low-privileged staff account to grant arbitrary module permissions to itself through the admin API, resulting in persistent privilege escalation. A staff user that only has `staff.create_and_edit_staff` can call `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` targeting their own account and write any permission structure, bypassing the intended role-based access control boundary. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Restrict the `staff.create_and_edit_staff` permission to only highly trusted staff members and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` to specific trusted roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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-2026-53644
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions 0.5.3 through 0.7.2 allow authenticated clients to both read and reset API key service secrets for orders that are no longer in an `active` state (e.g., `suspended`, `canceled`). The root cause is missing order-state validation in two client API endpoints, despite an `isActive()` helper already existing in the `Serviceapikey` module and the frontend UI correctly gating access on `order.status == 'active'`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. If the `Serviceapikey` module is not needed, uninstall it to remove the affected endpoints. One may also use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/client/order/service` and `/api/client/serviceapikey/reset` based on application-level order-state logic.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
CVE-2026-53643
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow low-privileged staff accounts to perform unauthorized actions via admin API endpoints. The root cause is a combination of the `can_always_access` module flag (which grants all staff access to certain modules) and insufficient permission checks or unsafe parameter handling on individual endpoints. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. Restrict staff accounts to only those who need access to sensitive settings and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to the affected endpoints to trusted IP addresses or higher-privilege roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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
CVE-2026-53642
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when the "Require Email Confirmation" setting is enabled, a logged-in client with an unverified email address (`email_approved = 0`) can access all client-area pages (e.g. `/client/balance`, `/client/order/list`, `/client/invoice`) and read real account data, including wallet balances and transaction history. The API-side enforcement correctly restricts unverified clients to only profile-related endpoints, but the page-side enforcement is overly permissive, allowing any request whose path starts with `/client`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. No known workarounds that don't involve modifying the source code are available.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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