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 TaiwanApplied Materials Taiwan
VS
BroadcomBroadcom
Applied Materials Taiwan

Applied Materials Taiwan

Hsinchu , TW

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

應用材料公司是提供材料工程解決方案的領導者,我們的設備用來製造幾近世界上每顆新式晶片與先進顯示器。我們以工業規模在原子層級進行材料改質的專業,協助客戶將可能轉化成真。在應用材料公司,我們引領材料創新,驅動世界的關鍵變革。 台灣應用材料公司自 1989 年在台營運,深耕台灣三十五年,厚植技術創新、人才培育與社會關懷。我們擁有獨一無二的設施,包括位於桃園的亞洲設備零組件物流中心、新竹的全球技術培訓中心、台南的顯示器設備製造中心與研發實驗室,以及半導體設備製造中心與維修中心,致力攜手台灣半導體及顯示器產業生態系,推動技術創新與發展。 ...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:28,563
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Broadcom

Broadcom

3401 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, California, US, 94304

Last Update: 19/05/2026

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

Broadcom provides semiconductors and infrastructure software for global organizations’ complex, mission-critical needs. We combine long-term R&D investment with superb execution to deliver the best technology, at scale. Through focus and expertise, Broadcom sets the st...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:55,707
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Applied Materials Taiwan

Applied Materials Taiwan

-
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
Broadcom

Broadcom

-
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 Taiwan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Broadcom has 86.92% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Applied Materials Taiwan 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 - Broadcom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Broadcom 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 Taiwan

Applied Materials Taiwan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Broadcom

Broadcom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
BRO1775111316
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BROBECTHEORAABB1773750615
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BRO3105131112625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
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-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/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