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

Comparison Overview

Agilent Dako Pathology SolutionsAgilent Dako Pathology Solutions
VS
Gilead SciencesGilead Sciences
Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions

Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions

5301 Stevens Creek Blvd, Santa Clara, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.agilent.com
754/1000Fair

Agilent is a global leader in life sciences, diagnostics, and applied chemical markets providing laboratories worldwide with instruments, services, consumables, applications, and expertise, enabling customers to gain the insights they seek. Agilent's expertise and trust...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, 94404, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gilead.com
804/1000Good

At Gilead, we set – and achieve – bold ambitions to create a healthier world for all people. From our pioneering virology medicines to our growing impact in oncology, we're delivering innovations once thought impossible in medicine. Our focus goes beyond medicines, and ...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:14,605
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions

Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions

-
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
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

-
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 Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gilead Sciences in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions 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 - Gilead Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gilead Sciences 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...
Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions

Agilent Dako Pathology Solutions

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GIL957091725
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GIL1527222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: 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: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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9