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

Comparison Overview

Agnico Eagle Mines LimitedAgnico Eagle Mines Limited
VS
First Quantum MineralsFirst Quantum Minerals
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

145 King Street East, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, CA, M5C-2Y7

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.agnicoeagle.com
827/1000Good

Agnico Eagle is a senior Canadian gold mining company that has produced precious metals since 1957. Its mines are located in Canada, Finland, Mexico, and Australia, with exploration activities in each of these countries as well as in the United States and Sweden. The Co...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:4,922
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
First Quantum Minerals

First Quantum Minerals

8th Floor – 543 Granville Street, Canada V6C 1X8, CA

Last Update: 10/09/2026

View Profile
804/1000Good

First Quantum Minerals Ltd. is a global mining company producing copper and nickel, as well as gold and cobalt. Our growing portfolio of operations and projects spans four continents and employs around 20,000 people. We are well-known for our ‘can do’ attitude and spec...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:12,295
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

-
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
First Quantum Minerals

First Quantum Minerals

-
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 Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Agnico Eagle Mines Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for First Quantum Minerals in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited 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 - First Quantum Minerals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

First Quantum Minerals 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...
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
First Quantum Minerals

First Quantum Minerals

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8