Comparison Overview

General Motors

VS

FORVIA

General Motors

100 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan, US, 48243
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

General Motors’ vision is to create a world with Zero Crashes, Zero Emissions and Zero Congestion, and we have committed ourselves to leading the way toward this future. Today, we are in the midst of a transportation revolution, and we have the ambition, the talent and the technology to realize the safer, better and more sustainable world we want. As an open, inclusive company, we’re also creating an environment where everyone feels welcomed and valued for who they are. One team, where all ideas are considered and heard, where everyone can contribute to their fullest potential, with a culture based in respect, integrity, accountability and equality. Our team brings wide-ranging perspectives and experiences to solving the complex transportation challenges of today and tomorrow. For information on the GM Privacy Statement, please visit http://www.gm.com/privacy-statement.html

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 103,855
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

FORVIA

None
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

FORVIA comprises the complementary technology and industrial strengths of Faurecia and HELLA. With over 300 industrial sites and 77 R&D centers, 150,000 people, including more than 35,000 engineers across 40+ countries, FORVIA provides a unique and comprehensive approach to the automotive challenges of today and tomorrow. Composed of 6 business groups with 24 product lines, and a strong IP portfolio of over 15,000 patents, FORVIA is focused on becoming the preferred innovation and integration partner for OEMS worldwide. FORVIA aims to be a change maker committed to foreseeing and making the mobility transformation happen.

NAICS: 3361
NAICS Definition: Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees: 56,528
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/general-motors.jpeg
General Motors
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/forvia.jpeg
FORVIA
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
General Motors
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
FORVIA
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

General Motors has 66.67% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FORVIA in 2025.

Incident History — General Motors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Motors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — FORVIA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FORVIA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/general-motors.jpeg
General Motors
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Credentials
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exploitation of on-board ports
Motivation: High horsepower and resale value
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/forvia.jpeg
FORVIA
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

General Motors company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to FORVIA company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

General Motors company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas FORVIA company has not reported any.

In the current year, General Motors company has reported more cyber incidents than FORVIA company.

Neither FORVIA company nor General Motors company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

General Motors company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other FORVIA company has not reported such incidents publicly.

General Motors company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while FORVIA company has not reported such incidents publicly.

General Motors company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while FORVIA company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

FORVIA company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to General Motors company.

General Motors company employs more people globally than FORVIA company, reflecting its scale as a Motor Vehicle Manufacturing.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds HIPAA certification.

Neither General Motors nor FORVIA holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreePBX Endpoint Manager is a module for managing telephony endpoints in FreePBX systems. Versions prior to 16.0.96 and 17.0.1 through 17.0.9 have a weak default password. By default, this is a 6 digit numeric value which can be brute forced. (This is the app_password parameter). Depending on local configuration, this password could be the extension, voicemail, user manager, DPMA or EPM phone admin password. This issue is fixed in versions 16.0.96 and 17.0.10.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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

Neuron is a PHP framework for creating and orchestrating AI Agents. In versions 2.8.11 and below, the MySQLWriteTool executes arbitrary SQL provided by the caller using PDO::prepare() + execute() without semantic restrictions. This is consistent with the name (“write tool”), but in an LLM/agent context it becomes a high-risk capability: prompt injection or indirect prompt manipulation can cause execution of destructive queries such as DROP TABLE, TRUNCATE, DELETE, ALTER, or privilege-related statements (subject to DB permissions). Deployments that expose an agent with MySQLWriteTool enabled to untrusted input and/or run the tool with a DB user that has broad privileges are impacted. This issue is fixed in version 2.8.12.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
Description

Neuron is a PHP framework for creating and orchestrating AI Agents. Versions 2.8.11 and below use MySQLSelectTool, which is vulnerable to Read-Only Bypass. MySQLSelectTool is intended to be a read-only SQL tool (e.g., for LLM agent querying, however, validation based on the first keyword (e.g., SELECT) and a forbidden-keyword list does not block file-writing constructs such as INTO OUTFILE / INTO DUMPFILE. As a result, an attacker who can influence the tool input (e.g., via prompt injection through a public agent endpoint) may write arbitrary files to the DB server if the MySQL/MariaDB account has the FILE privilege and server configuration permits writes to a useful location (e.g., a web-accessible directory). This issue is fixed in version 2.8.12.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API. In versions 11.0.0 through 20.0.0, race conditions may arise from concurrent requests using the ApiClient class. This could cause a status code or response header from one request’s response to influence another request’s response. This issue is fixed in version 20.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

The Auth0 Next.js SDK is a library for implementing user authentication in Next.js applications. When using versions 4.11.0 through 4.11.2 and 4.12.0, simultaneous requests on the same client may result in improper lookups in the TokenRequestCache for the request results. This issue is fixed in versions 4.11.2 and 4.12.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N