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

Comparison Overview

Technische Unie Datacom & Smart BuildingTechnische Unie Datacom & Smart Building
VS
ID Logistics GroupID Logistics Group
Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building

Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building

Bovenkerkerweg 10, Amstelveen, NL

Last Update: 21/03/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

De vraag naar data- en smart building oplossingen neemt toe zeker met de nieuwe wet en regelgeving in 2026. Technische Unie is een onafhankelijke partner om met u mee te denken over oplossingen, technische invulling en mogelijke slimme alternatieven op het gebied van da...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:97
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ID Logistics Group

ID Logistics Group

55, Chemin des Engranauds, Orgon, 13660, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
767/1000Fair

ID Logistics, headed by Eric Hémar, is an international contract logistics group with revenues of €3.3 billion in 2024. ID Logistics manages nearly 450 sites in 19 countries, representing more than 9 million m² operated in Europe, America, Asia and Africa, with 42,000 e...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:16,667
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building

Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building

-
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
ID Logistics Group

ID Logistics 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ID Logistics Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building 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 - ID Logistics Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ID Logistics Group 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...
Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building

Technische Unie Datacom & Smart Building

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ID Logistics Group

ID Logistics Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9