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

Comparison Overview

Transnet Port TerminalsTransnet Port Terminals
VS
Hapag-Lloyd AGHapag-Lloyd AG
Transnet Port Terminals

Transnet Port Terminals

202 Anton Lembede Street, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, ZA, 4001

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
784/1000Fair

Transnet Port Terminals (TPT) is South Africa’s leading terminal operator responsible for loading and offloading cargo aboard vessels calling the seven South African ports. Boasting a staff compliment of over 9000 across 16 cargo terminals, TPT’s operations target four...

NAICS:483
NAICS Definition:Water Transportation
Employees:4,167
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Ballindamm 25, Hamburg, 20095, DE

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.hapag-lloyd.com
784/1000Fair

With a fleet of 302 modern container ships and a total transport capacity of 2.5 million TEU, Hapag-Lloyd is one of the world’s leading liner shipping companies. In the Liner Shipping segment, the Company has 15,200 employees and 400 offices in 140 countries. Hapag-Lloy...

NAICS:483
NAICS Definition:Water Transportation
Employees:15,801
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Transnet Port Terminals

Transnet Port Terminals

-
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
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

-
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 Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Transnet Port Terminals in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Maritime Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

Hapag-Lloyd AG has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Transnet Port Terminals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transnet Port Terminals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Hapag-Lloyd AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hapag-Lloyd AG 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...
Transnet Port Terminals

Transnet Port Terminals

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hapag-Lloyd AG

Hapag-Lloyd AG

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAP1789129613
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAP508092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8