Comparison Overview

Barrick

VS

Sinosteel Corporation Limited

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

Sinosteel Corporation Limited

Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Sinosteel Corporation abbreviated as Sinosteel is a central enterprise under the administration of the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission. There are 86 subsidiaries under the administration of Sinosteel, among which 63 are in China and 23 abroad. In 2009, the core businesses revenue of Sinosteel reached RMB 164 billion, ranking the 352nd of World Top 500 according to the 2010 Fortune’s list. Sinosteel is mainly engaged in developing and processing of metallurgical mineral resources, trading and logistics of metallurgical raw materials and products, and related engineering technical service and equipment manufacture. It is a large multi-national enterprise with clear-defined core businesses that integrate resources development, trade & logistics, engineering project and science & technology, equipment manufacturing and specialized service, providing comprehensive auxiliary service for steel industry, especially steel mills.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
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/sinosteel-corporation-limited.jpeg
Sinosteel Corporation Limited
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
Sinosteel Corporation Limited
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 Sinosteel Corporation Limited in 2025.

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

Barrick cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Sinosteel Corporation Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sinosteel Corporation Limited 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/sinosteel-corporation-limited.jpeg
Sinosteel Corporation Limited
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Sinosteel Corporation Limited company and Barrick company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Sinosteel Corporation Limited company nor Barrick company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Sinosteel Corporation Limited company nor Barrick company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Sinosteel Corporation Limited company nor Barrick company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Barrick company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sinosteel Corporation Limited company.

Barrick company employs more people globally than Sinosteel Corporation Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Mining.

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Barrick nor Sinosteel Corporation Limited 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