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

Comparison Overview

Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.
VS
Mohawk IndustriesMohawk Industries
Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

3rd Floor KDLB Building,, Karachi, 75500, PK

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.alkaram.com/
760/1000Fair

The Al Karam Group was founded in March 1986 with a vision to be a provider of innovative textile solutions worldwide. We are a manufacturer and suppliers of distinguished fabric for apparel, home and industrial markets with clients all over the world. Our ability to cr...

NAICS:313
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:722
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mohawk Industries

Mohawk Industries

160 S Industrial Blvd, Calhoun, Georgia, US, 30701

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

Are you looking for more? At Mohawk Industries, we’re committed to more – more customer solutions, more process improvements, more sustainable manufacturing and more opportunities for our team. As a Fortune 500 global flooring leader with some of the best-known brands i...

NAICS:313
NAICS Definition:Textile Mills
Employees:12,780
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

-
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
Mohawk Industries

Mohawk Industries

-
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 Textile Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Textile Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mohawk Industries in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. 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 - Mohawk Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mohawk Industries 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...
Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Al-Karam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mohawk Industries

Mohawk Industries

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8