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

Comparison Overview

Applied Materials KoreaApplied Materials Korea
VS
Intel CorporationIntel Corporation
Applied Materials Korea

Applied Materials Korea

N/A

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile

미국 실리콘밸리에 본사를 둔 어플라이드 머티어리얼즈(Applied Materials)의 한국법인 어플라이드 머티어리얼즈 코리아(Applied Materials Korea)는 최첨단 기술과 글로벌 선진 사례를 국내 공유하고, 국내 기업으로부터 부품을 조달 받으며 지난 한국 IT 산업 발전에 기여해 왔습니다. 1989년 설립되어 반도체를 시작으로 1994년 평판 디스플레이, 2008년 태양전지 등 다양한 분야로 사업을 확장하고 있습니다. 어플라이드 코리아 블로그: https://b...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:101
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Intel Corporation

Intel Corporation

Robert Noyce Building, Santa Clara, 95052, US

Last Update: 05/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.intel.com
801/1000Good

Our mission is to shape the future of technology to help create a better future for the entire world, that’s the power of Intel Inside. With more ingenuity and creativity inside, our work is at the heart of countless innovations. From major breakthroughs to things that ...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:110,351
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Applied Materials Korea

Applied Materials Korea

-
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
Intel Corporation

Intel Corporation

-
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 Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Applied Materials Korea in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intel Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Applied Materials Korea (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Applied Materials Korea cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Intel Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intel Corporation 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...
Applied Materials Korea

Applied Materials Korea

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Intel Corporation

Intel Corporation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
INT1765483083
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
INT0000000051625
🔒 Incident : Breach
INT804082725

FAQ

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