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

Comparison Overview

Vertiv Hong KongVertiv Hong Kong
VS
FoxconnFoxconn
Vertiv Hong Kong

Vertiv Hong Kong

Suites 1501-04, 15/F, 625 King's Road, Hong Kong, HK

Last Update: 07/01/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.Vertiv.com
748/1000Moderate

Vertiv is a global leader in critical digital infrastructure for applications in data centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial environments.​ As businesses, industries, and communities become more connected, we pioneer and deliver end-to-end power...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Foxconn

Foxconn

US

Last Update: 23/09/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.foxconn.com
564/1000Very Poor

Established in Taiwan in 1974, Hon Hai Technology Group (Foxconn) (2317: Taiwan) is the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Foxconn is also the leading technological solution provider, and it continuously leverages its expertise in software and hardware to integra...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:99,265
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Vertiv Hong Kong

Vertiv Hong Kong

-
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
Foxconn

Foxconn

-
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 Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vertiv Hong Kong in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Foxconn has 292.16% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Vertiv Hong Kong (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vertiv Hong Kong cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Foxconn 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...
Vertiv Hong Kong

Vertiv Hong Kong

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Foxconn

Foxconn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GOOFOXAPP1778617574
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNIWESFOX1780562007
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ANTFOX7-ECARGIT1781576848

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9