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

Comparison Overview

Voltarol GBVoltarol GB
VS
Tata ElectronicsTata Electronics
Voltarol GB

Voltarol GB

980 Great West Road, Brentford, TW8 9GS, GB

Last Update: 26/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.voltarol.co.uk/
762/1000Fair

Explore the Voltarol product range and rediscover the joy of movement. Our range of products contain a powerful anti-inflammatory to target the source of pain, reduce inflammation and help speed up recovery. Voltarol is trusted to help ease pain and get you moving again...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Bengaluru , IN

Last Update: 04/07/2026

View Profile
684/1000Weak

Tata Electronics is a prominent global player in the electronics manufacturing industry, with fast-emerging capabilities in Electronics Manufacturing Services, Semiconductor Assembly and Test, Semiconductor Foundry, and Design Services. Established in 2020 as a greenf...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:16,251
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Voltarol GB

Voltarol GB

-
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
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Voltarol GB in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Electronics has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Voltarol GB (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Voltarol GB 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 - Tata Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Electronics 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...
Voltarol GB

Voltarol GB

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Electronics

Tata Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TATWHA1783182289
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
APP1782203449

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2