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

Comparison Overview

Yıldız HoldingYıldız Holding
VS
Newell BrandsNewell Brands
Yıldız Holding

Yıldız Holding

Kısıklı Mah. Ferah Cad. No:1, Istanbul, 34692, TR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
796/1000Fair

Yıldız Holding’in 1944 yılında İstanbul’da bisküvi üretimiyle başlayan hikâyesi, bugün 300’den fazla markayla 5 kıtada 4 milyar insana ulaştırdığımız gıda-atıştırmalık ürünlerimizle ve Türkiye’nin her noktasındaki perakende şirketlerimizle devam ediyor. Kökleri Türkiy...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:19,803
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Newell Brands

Newell Brands

6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd, Atlanta, GA, US, 30328

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.newellbrands.com
765/1000Fair

Newell Brands (NASDAQ: NWL) is a leading global consumer goods company with a strong portfolio of well-known brands, including Rubbermaid, Sharpie, Graco, Coleman, Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Yankee Candle, Paper Mate, FoodSaver, Dymo, EXPO, Elmer’s, Oster, NUK, Spo...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:14,503
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Yıldız Holding

Yıldız 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
Newell Brands

Newell Brands

-
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 Yıldız Holding in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Newell Brands in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Yıldız Holding (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yıldız Holding cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Newell Brands (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Newell Brands 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...
Yıldız Holding

Yıldız Holding

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Newell Brands

Newell Brands

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19961
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. Affected is the function formWlSiteSurvey of the file /goform/formWlSiteSurvey. Performing a manipulation of the argument selSSID results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out 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
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19960
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This impacts the function formWlbasic of the file /goform/formWlbasic. Such manipulation of the argument rootAPmac leads to command injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19959
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Edimax EW-7478APC 1.04. This affects the function formWanTcpipSetup of the file /goform/formWanTcpipSetup. This manipulation of the argument pppUserName causes stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-19958
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in iatsiuk pptr-mcp up to 0.2.7. The impacted element is the function executeCode of the file src/vm-executor.ts of the component execute Tool. The manipulation results in code injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
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-2026-19957
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in graphlit graphlit-mcp-server 1.0.1. This affects the function fetch of the file src/tools.ts of the component ssrf-test Endpoint. Such manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-16
UPDATED
Date2026-08-16
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