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

Comparison Overview

Silver Atena GmbHSilver Atena GmbH
VS
LegrandLegrand
Silver Atena GmbH

Silver Atena GmbH

Dachauer Str. 655, München, Bavaria 80995, DE

Last Update: 28/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.silver-atena.de
749/1000Moderate

For more than 25 years, Silver Atena has been the premium developer and high-tech supplier in the field of fail-safe systems and power electronics in the automotive, aerospace, renewable energy, and industrial sectors. The company offers all services along the entire ...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:332
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Legrand

Legrand

128 avenue du Marechal de Lattre de Tassigny, Limoges, FR, 87045

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.legrandgroup.com
803/1000Good

Legrand is a global specialist in electrical and digital building infrastructures, dedicated to supporting technological, societal and environmental change around the globe. Our purpose is to improve lives by transforming the spaces where people live, work and meet by...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:11,700
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Silver Atena GmbH

Silver Atena 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
Legrand

Legrand

-
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 Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Silver Atena GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Legrand in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Silver Atena GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Silver Atena 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 - Legrand (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Legrand 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...
Silver Atena GmbH

Silver Atena GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Legrand

Legrand

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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