Comparison Overview

CLX Engineering

VS

United Electric Controls

CLX Engineering

361 S. White Cedar Road, Sanford, FL, 32771, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22

CLX Engineering brings over 20 years of diverse technological expertise in electrical controls systems design and integration for a multitude of industries and applications. Baggage Handling Systems Theme Park and Entertainment Rides Food and Beverage Manufacturing and Distribution Mining and Petroleum Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems Our Team has core competencies in the technologies they service, continued training and development of skills, and most important – customer centric vision and values. We are continuously mentoring and leading our new hires, a new generation that not only will stay ahead of today’s technologies but will continue to foster the Code of Excellence that CLX Engineering has developed to serve our clients.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 55
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

United Electric Controls

180 Dexter Avenue, Watertown, MA, 02472, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1931 United Electric Controls (UEC), and its divisions, Applied Sensor Technologies and Precision Sensors, is a privately held corporation headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts, USA. UEC is a manufacturer of durable and reliable WirelessHART gas detectors; pressure, temperature, vacuum, electromechanical and electronic smart switches; safety transmitters; controls; and sensors. Focused on providing protection to equipment, processes, and personnel in a variety of industrial applications, our products range from simple units to highly specialized custom designs. Many UEC products perform industrial alarm and emergency shutdown functions for our global customers, while others provide critical sensor inputs into their control systems. Our reputation for dependable, reliable products is a result of innovative design, superior manufacturing processes, and a corporate focus on uncompromising quality.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 121
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/clx-engineering.jpeg
CLX Engineering
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/united-electric-controls.jpeg
United Electric Controls
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
CLX Engineering
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
United Electric Controls
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Industrial Automation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CLX Engineering in 2025.

Incidents vs Industrial Automation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for United Electric Controls in 2025.

Incident History — CLX Engineering (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CLX Engineering cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — United Electric Controls (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United Electric Controls cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/clx-engineering.jpeg
CLX Engineering
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/united-electric-controls.jpeg
United Electric Controls
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both CLX Engineering company and United Electric Controls company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, United Electric Controls company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to CLX Engineering company.

In the current year, United Electric Controls company and CLX Engineering company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither United Electric Controls company nor CLX Engineering company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither United Electric Controls company nor CLX Engineering company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither United Electric Controls company nor CLX Engineering company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CLX Engineering company nor United Electric Controls company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither CLX Engineering company nor United Electric Controls company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

United Electric Controls company employs more people globally than CLX Engineering company, reflecting its scale as a Industrial Automation.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CLX Engineering nor United Electric Controls 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