Comparison Overview

Barrick

VS

Glencore

Barrick

161 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S1, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

We are committed to partnering with our host countries and communities to transform their natural resources into tangible benefits for mutual prosperity.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition: Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees: 13,822
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Glencore

Baarermattstrasse 3, Baar, ZG, 6340, CH
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 800 and 849

Glencore is one of the world’s largest global diversified natural resource companies and a major producer and marketer of more than 60 commodities that advance everyday life. Through a network of assets, customers and suppliers that spans the globe, we produce, process, recycle, source, market and distribute the commodities that support decarbonisation while meeting the energy needs of today.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition: Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees: 17,483
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/barrick-gold-corporation.jpeg
Barrick
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/glencore.jpeg
Glencore
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Barrick
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Glencore
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mining Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Barrick in 2025.

Incidents vs Mining Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Glencore in 2025.

Incident History — Barrick (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Barrick cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Glencore (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Glencore cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/barrick-gold-corporation.jpeg
Barrick
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/glencore.jpeg
Glencore
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Glencore company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Barrick company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Barrick company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Glencore company has not reported any.

In the current year, Glencore company and Barrick company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Glencore company nor Barrick company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Glencore company nor Barrick company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Glencore company nor Barrick company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Barrick company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Glencore company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Glencore company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Barrick company.

Glencore company employs more people globally than Barrick company, reflecting its scale as a Mining.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Barrick nor Glencore holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H