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

Comparison Overview

Bruker BioSpinBruker BioSpin
VS
Gilead SciencesGilead Sciences
Bruker BioSpin

Bruker BioSpin

Rudolf-Plank Straße 23, Ettlingen, 76275, DE

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile
757/1000Fair

Bruker is a leading global manufacturer of analytical measurement systems for the life and material sciences. For more than 60 years, our high-performance scientific instruments as well as analytical and diagnostic solutions have enabled the study of living organisms an...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:1,217
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, 94404, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gilead.com
804/1000Good

At Gilead, we set – and achieve – bold ambitions to create a healthier world for all people. From our pioneering virology medicines to our growing impact in oncology, we're delivering innovations once thought impossible in medicine. Our focus goes beyond medicines, and ...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:14,605
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bruker BioSpin

Bruker BioSpin

-
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
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

-
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 Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bruker BioSpin in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gilead Sciences in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bruker BioSpin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bruker BioSpin 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 - Gilead Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gilead Sciences 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...
Bruker BioSpin

Bruker BioSpin

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GIL957091725
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GIL1527222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2