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

Comparison Overview

Bühler Group Animal FeedBühler Group Animal Feed
VS
Caterpillar Inc.Caterpillar Inc.
Bühler Group Animal Feed

Bühler Group Animal Feed

Gupfenstrasse 5, Uzwil, 9240, CH

Last Update: 08/01/2026

View Profile

Bühler is a total solution provider in the field of animal nutrition. We offer all relevant equipment and process technologies for the sustainable production of safe feed and food. From raw material intake to high quality finished feed product, Bühler equipment produces...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Caterpillar Inc.

Caterpillar Inc.

Irving, Texas, US

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.caterpillar.com
831/1000Good

For 100 years, we’ve been helping customers build a better, more sustainable world. Our innovative products and services, backed by our global dealer network, provide exceptional value that helps customers succeed. With 2024 sales and revenues of $64.8 billion, Caterp...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:61,410
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bühler Group Animal Feed

Bühler Group Animal Feed

-
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
Caterpillar Inc.

Caterpillar Inc.

-
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 Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bühler Group Animal Feed in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Caterpillar Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bühler Group Animal Feed (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bühler Group Animal Feed 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 - Caterpillar Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Caterpillar Inc. 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...
Bühler Group Animal Feed

Bühler Group Animal Feed

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Caterpillar Inc.

Caterpillar Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8