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

Comparison Overview

Tata TechnologiesTata Technologies
VS
ALTENALTEN
Tata Technologies

Tata Technologies

25 Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune, 411057, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
617/1000Poor

We're a global product engineering and digital services company focused on fulfilling our mission of helping the world drive, fly, build, and farm by enabling our customers to realize better products and deliver better experiences. We’re the strategic engineering partne...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:16,837
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
ALTEN

ALTEN

221 bis boulevard Jean jaurès, Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, Ile-de-France, FR, 92514

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.alten.com/
759/1000Fair

𝐀 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐓 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 ALTEN is committed to meeting the expectations of its stakeholders and anticipating their requirements in the fields of innovation, R&D, and technological information systems. Founded...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:36,212
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tata Technologies

Tata Technologies

-
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
ALTEN

ALTEN

-
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 Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ALTEN in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tata Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ALTEN (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ALTEN 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...
Tata Technologies

Tata Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TAT235040325
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TAT702030425
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TAT000020325
ALTEN

ALTEN

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-18577
SUMMARY

An incomplete patch for CVE-2026-18556 allows for authentication bypass and account takeover in N-central Versions through 2026.3.1

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:A/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-2026-10848
SUMMARY

The OCPP 1.6 client in subsys/net/lib/ocpp parsed inbound WAMP RPC frames in parse_rpc_msg() (subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp_j.c) using a hand-rolled helper, extract_string_field(), that copied the message's uid and action fields with strncpy(out_buf, token + 1, outlen - 1) and then scanned the result with strchr(out_buf, '"'). Because strncpy does not NUL-terminate the destination when the source is at least outlen - 1 (127) bytes long, the subsequent strchr reads past the 128-byte destination buffer into adjacent stack memory; if a " byte is found beyond the buffer, a one-byte out-of-bounds NUL write also occurs. A related defect in extract_payload() runs strchr/strrchr over the receive buffer, which may not be NUL-terminated when a maximal-length frame fills it. The parsed bytes come directly from the OCPP central-system server over a websocket: the reader thread fills recv_buf via websocket_recv_msg() and calls parse_rpc_msg() on each inbound DATA frame (subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp.c). A malicious or compromised central server, or an on-path attacker (OCPP is commonly deployed over plain ws://), can send an RPC frame whose uid or action field is 127+ bytes with no closing quote, triggering the out-of-bounds access. The primary impact is a remotely triggerable denial of service: the unbounded scan can fault on an unmapped page, and the stray NUL write can corrupt adjacent stack state. The over-read data is not reflected to the peer, so disclosure is limited. The feature is EXPERIMENTAL and must be explicitly enabled (CONFIG_OCPP). The fix replaces the manual parser with the bounds-respecting json_mixed_arr_parse() and copies the extracted uid with an explicitly NUL-terminated buffer, eliminating both over-reads.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-9856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in huggingface/transformers versions <=5.8.0.dev0 allows an attacker to perform arbitrary file writes via path traversal. The issue resides in the `save_pretrained()` methods of `PreTrainedTokenizerBase` and `ProcessorMixin`, where keys from the `chat_template` dictionary are used directly as filenames without proper validation. An attacker can exploit this by publishing a malicious Hugging Face Hub repository with a crafted `tokenizer_config.json` file. When a victim downloads and saves the tokenizer or processor, the attacker-controlled keys can escape the intended save directory, enabling arbitrary file writes with attacker-controlled content. This vulnerability affects multiple processors inheriting from `ProcessorMixin`, including Idefics, Florence, Gemma, Phi, and Qwen-VL.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-65321
SUMMARY

PyAthena prior to 3.35.4 contains a sql injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary SQL by exploiting improper quote-escaping in DefaultParameterFormatter.format(), which routes DELETE and CTAS statements to the _escape_hive function that backslash-escapes single quotes rather than doubling them. Because Athena and Trino do not treat backslashes as escape characters inside string literals, attacker-supplied input such as a single quote followed by SQL syntax causes the parser to terminate the string literal prematurely, enabling data exfiltration via UNION SELECT, execution of destructive statements, and attacker-controlled CTAS destination and content.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-10774
SUMMARY

Zephyr's Bluetooth Mesh subnet key management leaks one PSA Crypto key slot on every subnet-key teardown. In subsys/bluetooth/mesh/subnet.c, net_keys_create() imports the Private Beacon Key into a PSA key slot under CONFIG_BT_MESH_PRIV_BEACONS (enabled by default), but subnet_keys_destroy() guarded the matching psa_destroy_key() with CONFIG_BT_MESH_V1d1. That Kconfig symbol was removed when explicit Mesh 1.0.1 support was dropped, so the destroy branch became permanently dead code and the import is never balanced by a destroy. The imbalanced teardown is reached every time subnet keys are destroyed: deleting a subnet (Config Server NetKey Delete), completing a Key Refresh Procedure (which retires the old key set), and resetting/re-provisioning the node. The over-the-air triggers are processed only under the node's device key, so they are exercisable by the provisioner or network administrator that owns the node, reachable over the Bluetooth Mesh network. With the default CONFIG_MBEDTLS_PSA_KEY_SLOT_COUNT of 16, repeated add/delete or key-refresh cycles exhaust the shared PSA key-slot pool after roughly a dozen rounds. Once exhausted, bt_mesh_private_beacon_key() and thus subnet creation fail: the node can no longer add subnets or complete key refresh, and other PSA crypto consumers on the device may be starved, until the device is rebooted. The fix aligns the destroy guard with the import guard (CONFIG_BT_MESH_PRIV_BEACONS) so each slot is freed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9