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

Comparison Overview

Barrick Pueblo ViejoBarrick Pueblo Viejo
VS
ValeVale
Barrick Pueblo Viejo

Barrick Pueblo Viejo

None, None, Sánchez Ramírez, None, DO, None

Last Update: 15/01/2026

View Profile
760/1000Fair

El yacimiento de Pueblo Viejo se encuentra en la República Dominicana, aproximadamente a 100 kilómetros al noroeste de la ciudad de Santo Domingo. Es manejado comercialmente por Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Jersey 2 Limited, una empresa conjunta entre las mineras Barrick Go...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:583
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vale

Vale

Praia de Botafogo, 186, Salas 501 a 1901 , Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BR, 22250-145

Last Update: 06/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.vale.com
819/1000Good

We are a global mining company producing iron ore, pellets, and nickel, and we are committed to becoming one of the safest, most trustworthy mining company in the world. With a workforce of 120,000 employees, we work every day to transform natural resources into prosper...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:68,959
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Barrick Pueblo Viejo

Barrick Pueblo Viejo

-
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
Vale

Vale

-
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 Barrick Pueblo Viejo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vale in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Barrick Pueblo Viejo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Barrick Pueblo Viejo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Vale 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...
Barrick Pueblo Viejo

Barrick Pueblo Viejo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vale

Vale

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA