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

Comparison Overview

SodaStream International, Ltd.SodaStream International, Ltd.
VS
Tata ElectronicsTata Electronics
SodaStream International, Ltd.

SodaStream International, Ltd.

Atir Yeda 1, Kfar Saba, IL

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.SodaStream.com
743/1000Moderate

SodaStream, part of the global PepsiCo family, has been inspiring people for over a century to transform everyday water into extraordinary sparkling creations. We started with one mission: to help the world drink better, by offering an easy, fun, and personalized altern...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:1,195
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Bengaluru , IN

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
689/1000Weak

Tata Electronics is a prominent global player in the electronics manufacturing industry, with fast-emerging capabilities in Electronics Manufacturing Services, Semiconductor Assembly and Test, Semiconductor Foundry, and Design Services. Established in 2020 as a greenf...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:16,251
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SodaStream International, Ltd.

SodaStream International, Ltd.

-
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
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

SodaStream International, Ltd. has 60.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Electronics has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - SodaStream International, Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SodaStream International, Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tata Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Electronics 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...
SodaStream International, Ltd.

SodaStream International, Ltd.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SODVELDAN1788906339
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TATWHA1783182289
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
APP1782203449

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2