Comparison Overview

ZTO Express

VS

CEVA Logistics

ZTO Express

1685 Huazhi Road, Qingpu District Shanghai, China 201708, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Founded on May 8, 2002, ZTO Express (“ZTO” or “the Company”) is one of the leading express delivery companies in China in terms of parcel volume, with a 20.4% market share in 2020. ZTO is both a key enabler and a direct beneficiary of China’s fast-growing e-commerce market, and has established itself as the trusted express delivery partner for millions of commerce customers, including online merchants and consumers selling and buying products on Chinese leading e-commerce sites, such as Alibaba, PDD, JD.com. ZTO operates a highly scalable network partner model that enables it to expand nationwide network quickly and provide e-commerce merchants with greater geographic reach at low cost. Under a network partner model, it operates the mission-critical line-haul transportation and sorting network within the express delivery service value chain, whereas its network partners operate the outlets that provide first-mile pickup and last-mile delivery services. Operational efficiency and economies of scale enable ZTO to achieve strong operating leverage which drives higher return on invested capital and equity. ZTO’s objective is to become a world-leading comprehensive logistical services provider.

NAICS: 47
NAICS Definition: Transportation and Warehousing
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

CEVA Logistics

10, Place de la Joliette, Marseille, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur, 13002, FR
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

CEVA provides world-class supply chain solutions for large and medium-size national and multinational companies across the globe. As an industry leader, CEVA offers customers complete supply chain design and implementation in contract logistics and freight management, alone or in combination. Together with CMA CGM, a leading worldwide shipping group and CEVA’s strategic partner, we are able to offer our customers end-to-end logistics solutions. CEVA’s integrated global network has over 1,000 facilities in more than 170 countries and 98,000 employees; all dedicated to delivering consistently excellent operations and supply chain solutions.

NAICS: 47
NAICS Definition: Transportation and Warehousing
Employees: 47,815
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ztoexpress.jpeg
ZTO Express
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ceva-logistics.jpeg
CEVA Logistics
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
ZTO Express
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CEVA Logistics
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ZTO Express in 2025.

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CEVA Logistics in 2025.

Incident History — ZTO Express (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ZTO Express cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CEVA Logistics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CEVA Logistics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ztoexpress.jpeg
ZTO Express
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ceva-logistics.jpeg
CEVA Logistics
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2021
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: ransomware (Ragnar Locker)
Motivation: financial gain, data theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2021
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2020
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

FAQ

CEVA Logistics company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to ZTO Express company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

CEVA Logistics company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas ZTO Express company has not reported any.

In the current year, CEVA Logistics company and ZTO Express company have not reported any cyber incidents.

CEVA Logistics company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while ZTO Express company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CEVA Logistics company nor ZTO Express company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

CEVA Logistics company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while ZTO Express company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither ZTO Express company nor CEVA Logistics company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CEVA Logistics company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to ZTO Express company.

CEVA Logistics company employs more people globally than ZTO Express company, reflecting its scale as a Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ZTO Express nor CEVA Logistics holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H