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

Comparison Overview

Xylem IgniteXylem Ignite
VS
Parker HannifinParker Hannifin
Xylem Ignite

Xylem Ignite

301 Water St SE, Washington, 20003, US

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.xylem.com/ignite
746/1000Moderate

Xylem Ignite is our global youth initiative that seeks to build a strong network of passionate student leaders and empower them to drive real changes in the water industry. We recognize the mounting environmental challenges impacting humankind and the need to prepare t...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

6035 Parkland Blvd, Cleveland, 44124, US

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
610/1000Poor

Parker Hannifin is a Fortune 250 global leader in motion and control technologies. Guided by our purpose—“Enabling Engineering Breakthroughs that Lead to a Better Tomorrow”—we help customers solve complex challenges through expertise in electromechanical systems, filtra...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:29,965
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Xylem Ignite

Xylem Ignite

-
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
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Xylem Ignite in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Parker Hannifin in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Xylem Ignite (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Xylem Ignite cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Parker Hannifin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Parker Hannifin 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...
Xylem Ignite

Xylem Ignite

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Parker Hannifin

Parker Hannifin

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PAR0432504110325
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR134826522
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR448072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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