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

Comparison Overview

ArcelorMittal PolandArcelorMittal Poland
VS
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel IndiaArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India
ArcelorMittal Poland

ArcelorMittal Poland

ArcelorMittal Poland S. A. Oddział w Dąbrowie Górniczej, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Silesian Voivodeship, 41-308, PL

Last Update: 04/02/2026

View Profile
760/1000Fair

ArcelorMittal Poland is the largest steel producer in Poland, employing about 10 000 people in six plants located in Silesia, Malopolska and Opolskie province. Thanks to the investments, the value of which in 2004-2024 amounted to more than PLN 11 bn, ArcelorMittal Pola...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:979
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

27 km, Surat-Hazira Road , Surat, 394270, IN

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.amns.in
783/1000Fair

AM/NS India is a joint venture between the world's leading steel companies, ArcelorMittal and Nippon Steel. Established in December 2019, post-acquisition of Essar Steel, we are an integrated flat steel manufacturer - from iron ore to ready-to-market products. With over...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:11,401
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ArcelorMittal Poland

ArcelorMittal Poland

-
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
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

-
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 Poland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ArcelorMittal Poland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ArcelorMittal Poland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India 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 Poland

ArcelorMittal Poland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
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-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
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-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3