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

Comparison Overview

ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure CanadaArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada
VS
Jindal Steel Ltd.Jindal Steel Ltd.
ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada

ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada

1010 Rue de Serigny, Longueuil, QC, J4K 5G7, CA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Bienvenue dans notre univers gigantesque ! ArcelorMittal Exploitation minière Canada s.e.n.c. (AMEM) et ArcelorMittal Infrastructure Canada s.e.n.c. (AMIC) font partie du Groupe ArcelorMittal, numéro un de l’acier qui figure aussi parmi les cinq plus grands producteurs...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:426
Subsidiaries:39
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Jindal Steel Ltd.

Jindal Steel Ltd.

Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaiji Cama Place, Delhi, New Delhi, IN, 110066

Last Update: 20/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.jindalsteel.in
804/1000Good

Jindal Steel is one of India’s foremost integrated steel producers, renowned for its scale, efficiency, and commitment to excellence. Operating on a robust mine-to-metal model, the Company leverages captive resources, advanced manufacturing capabilities, and a global di...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:20,037
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada

ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada

-
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
Jindal Steel Ltd.

Jindal Steel 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jindal Steel Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Jindal Steel Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jindal Steel Ltd. 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...
ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada

ArcelorMittal Mines et Infrastructure Canada

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Jindal Steel Ltd.

Jindal Steel Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8