Comparison Overview

BioLife Plasma Services

VS

Lonza

BioLife Plasma Services

None, None, Bannockburn , Illinois , US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 700 and 749

Every day at BioLife, we feel good knowing that what we do helps improve the lives of patients with rare diseases. While you focus on our donors, we’ll support you. We offer a purpose you can believe in, a team you can count on, opportunities for career growth, and a comprehensive benefits program, all in a fast-paced, friendly environment.

NAICS: 3254
NAICS Definition: Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees: 3,509
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Lonza

Muenchensteinerstr. 38, Basel, undefined, 4002, CH
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

At Lonza, we enable A Healthier World by supporting our healthcare customers on the path to commercialization. Our community of 16,000 talented employees work across a global network of more than 30 sites to deliver for our customers across the pharma, biotech and nutrition markets. By combining technological insight with world-class manufacturing, scientific expertise and process excellence, we help our customers to deliver new and innovative medicines that help treat a wide range of diseases. While we work in science, there’s no magic formula to how we do it. Our greatest scientific solution is talented people working together, devising commitment and ideas that help our customers to help people. In exchange, we let our people own their careers. Their ideas, big and small, genuinely improve the world. And that’s the kind of work we want to be part of. Our work makes A Meaningful Difference.

NAICS: 3254
NAICS Definition: Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees: 17,491
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/biolifeplasmaservices.jpeg
BioLife Plasma Services
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/lonza.jpeg
Lonza
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
BioLife Plasma Services
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lonza
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BioLife Plasma Services in 2025.

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lonza in 2025.

Incident History — BioLife Plasma Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BioLife Plasma Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Lonza cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/biolifeplasmaservices.jpeg
BioLife Plasma Services
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Credential Stuffing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lonza.jpeg
Lonza
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lonza company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to BioLife Plasma Services company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

BioLife Plasma Services company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Lonza company has not reported any.

In the current year, Lonza company and BioLife Plasma Services company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lonza company nor BioLife Plasma Services company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

BioLife Plasma Services company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Lonza company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Lonza company nor BioLife Plasma Services company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services company nor Lonza company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lonza company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to BioLife Plasma Services company.

Lonza company employs more people globally than BioLife Plasma Services company, reflecting its scale as a Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BioLife Plasma Services nor Lonza 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