Comparison Overview

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

VS

Arçelik Türkiye

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

1000 Stanley Drive, New Britain, CT, 06053, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

For the builders and protectors, for the makers and explorers, for those shaping and reshaping our world through hard work and inspiration, Stanley Black & Decker provides the tools and innovative solutions you can trust to get the job done—and we have since 1843. You repair your home and car with the tools we provide. Your car and your phone are secured with our fasteners. And the roads you drive on, the bridges you cross, the energy you consume, all of these most likely came to you via one of our infrastructure systems. We join forces to bring together the best of the best to create practical, meaningful products and services that make life easier—empowering people to do better, safer, more significant work. Innovation and excellence have powered our success, but we know there’s more we can do for the world and those who make it. Across our businesses, we’re investing in breakthrough innovation and digital excellence, striving for outperformance and increasing our focus on social responsibility. We define success as: delivering value to our customers, colleagues and communities. Our commitment to quality, safety and sustainability helps us on our path to becoming the type of uniquely human-centered global industrial company that keeps every stakeholder in mind, while helping to make the world better.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 25,799
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Arçelik Türkiye

Karaağaç Caddesi, İstanbul, 34445, TR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Arçelik Türkiye olarak, "Dünyaya Saygılı Dünyada Saygın" misyonuyla yola çıkıyoruz ve teknoloji, insan kaynağı ve üretim gücümüzü sürdürülebilir bir gelecek için kullanıyoruz. 1955 yılında başlayan yolculuğumuz bugün, 22 marka, 46 üretim tesisi, 55.000 çalışan ve 58 ülkedeki 125 iştirak ile global bir varlık olarak devam ediyor. Arçelik markaları arasında Arçelik, Beko, Whirlpool*, Grundig, Hotpoint, Arctic, Ariston*, Leisure, Indesit, Blomberg, Defy, Dawlance, Hitachi*, Voltas Beko, Singer, ElektraBregenz, Flavel, Bauknecht, Privileg, Altus, Ignis ve Polar bulunmaktadır. Vizyonumuz, kendimizi sürekli yenileyerek ve sektörümüzde liderliği sürdürerek, dijitalleşen hanelerin ve şirketlerin güvenilir çözüm ortağı olmaktır. 31 Ar-Ge ve Tasarım Merkezi ile inovasyon ve sürdürülebilirlik konularında öncü rol oynamaktayız. *Limitli marka kullanım hakkına sahiptir.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 11,496
Subsidiaries: 52
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stanley-black-decker-inc.jpeg
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arcelikturkiye.jpeg
Arçelik Türkiye
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Arçelik Türkiye
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arçelik Türkiye in 2026.

Incident History — Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Arçelik Türkiye (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arçelik Türkiye cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stanley-black-decker-inc.jpeg
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arcelikturkiye.jpeg
Arçelik Türkiye
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Arçelik Türkiye company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Arçelik Türkiye company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company.

In the current year, Arçelik Türkiye company and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Arçelik Türkiye company nor Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Arçelik Türkiye company nor Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Arçelik Türkiye company nor Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company nor Arçelik Türkiye company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Arçelik Türkiye company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. company employs more people globally than Arçelik Türkiye company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. nor Arçelik Türkiye holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N