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

Comparison Overview

Baxter ManufacturingBaxter Manufacturing
VS
JBSJBS
Baxter Manufacturing

Baxter Manufacturing

19220 SR 162 East, Orting, WA, 98360, US

Last Update: 25/01/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.baxtermfg.com
747/1000Moderate

Baxter Manufacturing has grown to become the foremost manufacturer of ovens and proofers in the United States. Baxter is known for high quality equipment and recognized as a leader in baking and cooking technologies. Through our innovative products, we will empower ou...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:65
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
JBS

JBS

Avenida Marginal Direita do Tietê, 500, São Paulo, 05118-100, BR

Last Update: 14/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://jbs.com.br
716/1000Moderate

Na JBS, a gente alimenta um futuro melhor. Tudo começou com uma pequena porta de um açougue, há mais de 70 anos. E, daquela porta, surgiram muitas outras. Foi acreditando em coisas simples, em fazer sempre melhor, contando com o trabalho de muita gente e abrindo portas...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:84,525
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Baxter Manufacturing

Baxter Manufacturing

-
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
JBS

JBS

-
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 Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baxter Manufacturing in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JBS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Baxter Manufacturing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baxter Manufacturing 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 - JBS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JBS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Baxter Manufacturing

Baxter Manufacturing

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
JBS

JBS

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KAS903062325
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JBS217031425
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JBS1780944727

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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