Comparison Overview

Barrick Mining Corporation

VS

JSW Steel

Barrick Mining Corporation

Toronto, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

Barrick is a leading global mining, exploration and development company. We create real, long-term value for all stakeholders through responsible mining, strong partnerships and a disciplined approach to growth.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition: Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

JSW Steel

Bandra Kurla Complex,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400 051
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Over the last 35 years, we have partnered the country in its journey to self-reliance, by embracing sustainability, adopting cutting-edge technology and having innovation and R&D initiatives at the heart of our culture. From humble beginnings with a single plant in 1982, we are now India's leading manufacturer of value-added and high-end steels. Our plants in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have a total capacity of 29.7 MTPA, and we are scaling up existing plants and opening new ones to take that figure to 40 MTPA. Globally, we own a plate and pipe mill in the US, and mining assets in the US, Chile and Mozambique. But we're not ones to rest on our laurels. Driven by decades of experience and a dynamic culture, we constantly seek new ways to revolutionize steelmaking. To begin with, we integrate sustainability into everything we do. We benchmark our business vision and governance systems, manufacturing and sales processes, and even our customer and community engagement initiatives, against global best-in-class standards. We bolster these sustainability initiatives, by staying on the cutting edge of technology. It's a strategy that has helped us create the largest product portfolio in India, and at the same time, become India's largest exporter of steel with a presence in more than 100 countries. Today, nearly 40% of our products are high-value steels, a figure we intend to take up to 50% soon. We’ve made this technological prowess possible with a relentless focus on innovation and R&D. It has helped us stay ahead of competition, customise our offerings as per client requirements, partner with global leaders such as JFE Steel, Marubeni Itochu Steel, Praxair and Severfield Rowen Plc. to be cost-efficient, and be seen worldwide as a purveyor of high-end, value-added steel.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition: Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees: 20,930
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/barrick-mining-corporation.jpeg
Barrick Mining Corporation
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/jswsteel.jpeg
JSW Steel
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 Mining Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
JSW Steel
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mining Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Barrick Mining Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Mining Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JSW Steel in 2025.

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

Barrick Mining Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — JSW Steel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JSW Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/barrick-mining-corporation.jpeg
Barrick Mining Corporation
Incidents

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

Date Detected: 10/2020
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Barrick Mining Corporation and JSW Steel have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, JSW Steel company and Barrick Mining Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

JSW Steel company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Barrick Mining Corporation company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither JSW Steel company nor Barrick Mining Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither JSW Steel company nor Barrick Mining Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Barrick Mining Corporation company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while JSW Steel company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Barrick Mining Corporation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to JSW Steel company.

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

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Barrick Mining Corporation nor JSW Steel 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