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

Comparison Overview

Colorectal Cancer Research NetworkColorectal Cancer Research Network
VS
ICON plcICON plc
Colorectal Cancer Research Network

Colorectal Cancer Research Network

Oxford, GB

Last Update: 02/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://crcnetwork.net
768/1000Fair

An international collaboration working towards increased understanding of the mechanisms behind colorectal cancer, with the aim of improving treatment options.

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ICON plc

ICON plc

ICON plc, South County Business Park, Leopardstown, Dublin, IE, D18 X5R3

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.iconplc.com
796/1000Fair

Since our foundation in Dublin, Ireland in 1990, our mission has been to help our clients to accelerate the development of drugs and devices that save lives and improve quality of life. We do this by delivering best in class information, solutions and performance, with ...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:34,531
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Colorectal Cancer Research Network

Colorectal Cancer Research Network

-
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
ICON plc

ICON plc

-
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 Colorectal Cancer Research Network in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ICON plc in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Colorectal Cancer Research Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Colorectal Cancer Research Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ICON plc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ICON plc 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...
Colorectal Cancer Research Network

Colorectal Cancer Research Network

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ICON plc

ICON plc

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2