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

Comparison Overview

The Progressive GroupThe Progressive Group
VS
Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)
The Progressive Group

The Progressive Group

4700 Barden Ct SE, Grand Rapids, 49512, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
698/1000Weak

The Progressive Group, a subsidiary of Patrick Industries, Inc. (PATK ), is a consumer electronics distributor and manufacturers'​ representative, offering high-value product lines in the mobile and home electronics industry. Our goal is to provide our customers in the...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:79
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)

Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)

222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, 60654, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.motorola.com
792/1000Fair

As part of the Lenovo family, Motorola Mobility is creating innovative smartphones and accessories designed with the consumer in mind. That’s why we’re looking for the thinkers, innovators and problem solvers who believe in working together to challenge the status quo. ...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:24,109
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
The Progressive Group

The Progressive Group

-
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
Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)

Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)

-
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 Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Progressive Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - The Progressive Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Progressive Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company) 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...
The Progressive Group

The Progressive Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
THE1769095627
Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)

Motorola Mobility (a Lenovo Company)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9