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

Comparison Overview

Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbHSharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH
VS
Western DigitalWestern Digital
Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

undefined, Munich, undefined, undefined, DE

Last Update: 24/01/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe is the leading global provider of professional and commercial visual technology and digital signage solutions, owned jointly by Sharp Corporation and NEC Corporation. Sharp NEC Display Solutions offers one of the broadest visual soluti...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:185
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Western Digital

Western Digital

5601 Great Oaks Parkway, San Jose, CA, US, 95138

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
773/1000Fair

At Western Digital, our vision is to unleash the power and value of data. For decades, we have been at the forefront of storage innovation, which fuels our mission to be the market leader in data storage, delivering solutions for now and the future. We are committed to ...

NAICS:3341
NAICS Definition:Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
Employees:22,591
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

-
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
Western Digital

Western Digital

-
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 Computer Hardware Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Western Digital in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH 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 - Western Digital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Western Digital 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...
Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Sharp NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Western Digital

Western Digital

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
WES5892358093025
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
WES5632056093025
🔒 Incident : Breach
WES04621023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3