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

Comparison Overview

Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)
VS
WärtsiläWärtsilä
Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)

Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)

Verheeskade 4, Den Haag, undefined, 2521 BN, NL

Last Update: 08/11/2025

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.schindler.nl
746/1000Moderate

Schindler Nederland is onderdeel van de Schindler Group en is al meer dan honderd jaar succesvol in haar branche. We zijn een wereldspeler met een lokale focus en trots dat onze installaties deel uitmaken van verschillende, zeer spraakmakende projecten in Nederland. Bi...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:210
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Wärtsilä

Wärtsilä

Hiililaiturinkuja 2, Helsinki, 00180, FI

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.wartsila.com
788/1000Fair

We enable sustainable societies through innovation in technology and services together with all our stakeholders – today and tomorrow. We emphasise innovation in sustainable technology and services to help our customers continuously improve environmental and economic p...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:16,129
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)

Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)

-
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
Wärtsilä

Wärtsilä

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wärtsilä in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands) 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 - Wärtsilä (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wärtsilä 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...
Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)

Schindler Liften BV (Netherlands)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Wärtsilä

Wärtsilä

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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