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

Comparison Overview

ASARCOASARCO
VS
Anglo AmericanAnglo American
ASARCO

ASARCO

1365 W Pima Mine Rd, Sahuarita, 85629, US

Last Update: 16/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.asarco.com
721/1000Moderate

Grupo Mexico is a transnational mining company with operations in the U.S., Mexico and Peru. ASARCO (American Smelting and Refining Company), the U.S. based subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company with approximately 1,70...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:1,138
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Anglo American

Anglo American

17 Charterhouse Street, London, EC1N 6RA, GB

Last Update: 14/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.angloamerican.com
817/1000Good

Anglo American is a leading global mining company and our products are the essential ingredients in almost every aspect of modern life. Our portfolio of world-class competitive operations, with a broad range of future development options, provides many of the future-ena...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:26,527
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ASARCO

ASARCO

-
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
Anglo American

Anglo American

-
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 ASARCO in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Anglo American in 2026.

Incidents

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

ASARCO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Anglo American (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Anglo American 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...
ASARCO

ASARCO

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ASA211072525
Anglo American

Anglo American

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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