Comparison Overview

Conditon Monitoring Australia

VS

Finite Element Analysis

Conditon Monitoring Australia

undefined, undefined, undefined, 2083, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-28

Peace of mind that you are working with a company which has over 22 years of experience in the CM industry and our Quality System is certified to ISO9001-2008 Condition Monitoring is our ONLY business, it's what we do best! CONDITION MONITORING - VIBRATION ANALYSIS - DYNAMIC BALANCING - LASER ALIGNMENT - OIL ANALYSIS CM TRAINING - POST OVERHAUL MACHINE QUALITY TESTING - MOTOR CIRCUIT ANALYSIS - THERMOGRAPHY

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 5
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Finite Element Analysis

2940 S Park Rd, Bethel Park, 15102, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28

We perform (thermal/ transient, stress, vibration/shock and fatigue) finite element analysis as well as CFD to Codes including API, AWS and ASME - ensuring structural integrity, performance and reliability. The bottom-line benefits to FEA analysis are quantifying design cycles, keeping production costs low through design optimization, and uncovering potential sources of operational/field failures – as well as improving reliability and lowering costs. ASME Code includes: - B&PV Section III Class 1, 2 and 3 vessels and components - B&PV Section VIII Div. 1, 2 and 3 vessels - B&PV Sections IX and XI - ASME B15, B16 - ASME B31.1, B31.3, + - ASME Below the Hook BTH-1 & B30.20

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: None
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/conditon-monitoring-australia.jpeg
Conditon Monitoring Australia
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/model-page.jpeg
Finite Element Analysis
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
Conditon Monitoring Australia
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Finite Element Analysis
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Conditon Monitoring Australia in 2025.

Incidents vs Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Finite Element Analysis in 2025.

Incident History — Conditon Monitoring Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Conditon Monitoring Australia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Finite Element Analysis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Finite Element Analysis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/conditon-monitoring-australia.jpeg
Conditon Monitoring Australia
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/model-page.jpeg
Finite Element Analysis
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Finite Element Analysis company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Conditon Monitoring Australia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Finite Element Analysis company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Conditon Monitoring Australia company.

In the current year, Finite Element Analysis company and Conditon Monitoring Australia company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Finite Element Analysis company nor Conditon Monitoring Australia company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Finite Element Analysis company nor Conditon Monitoring Australia company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Finite Element Analysis company nor Conditon Monitoring Australia company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia company nor Finite Element Analysis company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Finite Element Analysis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Conditon Monitoring Australia company.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Conditon Monitoring Australia nor Finite Element Analysis 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