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

Comparison Overview

Procter & Gamble ItaliaProcter & Gamble Italia
VS
Philip Morris InternationalPhilip Morris International
Procter & Gamble Italia

Procter & Gamble Italia

Viale Giorgio Ribotta, Rome, 00144, IT

Last Update: 21/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://it.pg.com
766/1000Fair

Le nostre marche sono accolte con fiducia in milioni di salotti, cucine, lavanderie e bagni e vengono tramandati di generazione in generazione. Nel corso di 181 anni hanno sfidato le convenzioni, guidato l’innovazione e contribuito al progresso culturale. Continuiamo a...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Philip Morris International

Philip Morris International

Avenue de Rhodanie 50, Lausanne, CH, 1007

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pmi.com/
842/1000Good

Philip Morris International (PMI) is a leading international consumer goods company working to deliver a smoke-free future and evolving its portfolio for the long term to include products outside of the tobacco and nicotine sector. Since 2008, PMI has invested more than...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:65,038
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Procter & Gamble Italia

Procter & Gamble Italia

-
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
Philip Morris International

Philip Morris International

-
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 Procter & Gamble Italia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Philip Morris International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Procter & Gamble Italia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Procter & Gamble Italia 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 - Philip Morris International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Philip Morris International 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...
Procter & Gamble Italia

Procter & Gamble Italia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Philip Morris International

Philip Morris International

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3