Comparison Overview

Tokyo Metro

VS

Hitachi Rail

Tokyo Metro

Taito-ku, Tokyo, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

”Initiatives toward Sustainable Development in Cities Overseas" The Tokyo Metro Group is aiming to increase profits from our overseas railway business, and along with that, we are pushing for participation in and expansion of the overseas railway business that contributes to the sustainable development of cities around the world by extending environmentally friendly railway technology to them. Social Media Policy https://www.tokyometro.jp/lang_en/policy/index.html

NAICS: 482
NAICS Definition: Rail Transportation
Employees: 5,001-10,000
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Hitachi Rail

60 Ludgate Hill, 7th Floor, One New Ludgate, London, England, GB, EC4M 7AW
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Hitachi Rail is committed to driving a sustainable mobility transition and helping every passenger, customer and community enjoy more connected, seamless and sustainable transport. Hitachi Rail is a trusted partner to operators around the world with expertise across every part of the rail ecosystems – from manufacture and maintenance of rolling stock to digital signalling and smart operational systems. In FY23, the company had revenues of €7bn with 24,000 employees across over 50 countries, and it invests in its diverse and talented teams. Drawing on the wider Hitachi group companies, Hitachi Rail furthers the development of digital innovation and new technologies to help pioneer resilient and sustainable solutions.

NAICS: 482
NAICS Definition: Rail Transportation
Employees: 14,420
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tokyo-metro-academy.jpeg
Tokyo Metro
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/hitachirail.jpeg
Hitachi Rail
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
Tokyo Metro
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hitachi Rail
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tokyo Metro in 2025.

Incidents vs Rail Transportation Industry Average (This Year)

Hitachi Rail has 66.67% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Tokyo Metro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tokyo Metro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Hitachi Rail (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hitachi Rail cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tokyo-metro-academy.jpeg
Tokyo Metro
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hitachirail.jpeg
Hitachi Rail
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Stolen credentials, Vulnerability exploitation, Phishing
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Radio Frequency (RF) communications
Motivation: Disruption of operations, brake system failures
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Hitachi Rail company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Tokyo Metro company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Hitachi Rail company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Tokyo Metro company has not reported any.

In the current year, Hitachi Rail company has reported more cyber incidents than Tokyo Metro company.

Hitachi Rail company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Tokyo Metro company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Hitachi Rail company nor Tokyo Metro company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Hitachi Rail company nor Tokyo Metro company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Hitachi Rail company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Tokyo Metro company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Hitachi Rail company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tokyo Metro company.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tokyo Metro nor Hitachi Rail holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H