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

Comparison Overview

ArcelorMittalArcelorMittal
VS
BHPBHP
ArcelorMittal

ArcelorMittal

24 - 26 Boulevard d'Avranches, L-1160 Luxembourg, LU

Last Update: 20/04/2026

View Profile
800/1000Good

ArcelorMittal is the world's leading steel and mining company, with a presence in more than 60 countries and an industrial footprint in 18 countries. Guided by a philosophy to produce safe, sustainable steel, we are the leading supplier of quality steel in the major glo...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:62,130
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
BHP

BHP

171 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000, AU

Last Update: 03/08/2026

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

We are supplying the resources the world needs to help build a better, clearer future. Copper for renewable energy. Potash for sustainable farming. Iron ore and metallurgical coal for the steel needed for global infrastructure and the energy transition. #FutureIsClear ...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:40,388
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ArcelorMittal

ArcelorMittal

-
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
BHP

BHP

-
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)

ArcelorMittal has 58.33% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

BHP has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

ArcelorMittal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - BHP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BHP 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...
ArcelorMittal

ArcelorMittal

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BE-IBEALSARC1776666624
BHP

BHP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TELKIWALDBHP1783413728

FAQ

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