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

Comparison Overview

TTControlTTControl
VS
AkkodisAkkodis
TTControl

TTControl

Schönbrunnerstrasse 7, Vienna, 1040, AT

Last Update: 23/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ttcontrol.com
751/1000Fair

TTControl is a leading company in the field of safety control systems, rugged displays and connectivity as well as IoT solutions for mobile machinery and off-highway vehicles. The joint venture of the HYDAC Group and the TTTech Group is based in Vienna (Austria) and Bri...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:119
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Akkodis

Akkodis

N/A

Last Update: 29/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.akkodis.com
813/1000Good

Akkodis is a global digital engineering company and Smart Industry leader. We enable clients to advance in their digital transformation with Talent, Academy, Consulting, and Solutions services. Our 50,000 experts combine best-in-class technologies, R&D, and deep sector ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:25,035
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TTControl

TTControl

-
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
Akkodis

Akkodis

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TTControl in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Akkodis in 2026.

Incidents

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

TTControl cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Akkodis 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...
TTControl

TTControl

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Akkodis

Akkodis

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9