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

Comparison Overview

UbelUbel
VS
Porsche HoldingPorsche Holding
Ubel

Ubel

Morseltoven 14, Borne, 7621 HB, NL

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ubel.nl
748/1000Moderate

Ubel is dé specialist op het gebied van producten in grote W-installaties in de utiliteit, woningbouw en industrie. Ons assortiment omvat producten voor het complete distributiekanaal. Bovendien kunt u rekenen op deskundig advies en maatwerkoplossingen voor uw specifiek...

NAICS:42
NAICS Definition:Wholesale Trade
Employees:35
Subsidiaries:98
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Porsche Holding

Porsche Holding

Louise-Piëch-Straße 2, Salzburg, AT

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
770/1000Fair

Porsche Holding Salzburg is the largest and most successful automotive distributor in Europe. Our roots are in Salzburg, but we now also operate in 29 countries on three continents. Our core expertise: global automotive distribution. Our business divisions: automotive w...

NAICS:42
NAICS Definition:Wholesale Trade
Employees:10,474
Subsidiaries:107
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ubel

Ubel

-
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
Porsche Holding

Porsche Holding

-
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 Wholesale Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ubel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wholesale Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Porsche Holding in 2026.

Incidents

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

Ubel 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 - Porsche Holding (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Porsche Holding 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...
Ubel

Ubel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Porsche Holding

Porsche Holding

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8