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

Comparison Overview

DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITEDDURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED
VS
Kimberly-ClarkKimberly-Clark
DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED

DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED

N/A

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.durst-group.com
758/1000Fair

We are a manufacturer of advanced digital printing and production technologies with headquarters in Brixen, South Tyrol, Italy. Our core business is digital inkjet printing and the associated ecosystem of printing inks, software and servicesWe offer holistic solutions i...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:12
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Kimberly-Clark

Kimberly-Clark

351 Phelps Dr, Irving, TX, US, 75038

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://linktr.ee/WeAreKC
805/1000Good

At Kimberly-Clark, everything we do begins with care — for people, for communities, and for the planet we share. For more than 150 years, our brands have created essentials that make life better for billions of people every day. Better Care for a Better World is more th...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:34,955
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED

DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED

-
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
Kimberly-Clark

Kimberly-Clark

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kimberly-Clark in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED 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 - Kimberly-Clark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kimberly-Clark 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...
DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED

DURST IMAGE TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Kimberly-Clark

Kimberly-Clark

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KIM859072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85456
SUMMARY

MOOS-IvP through 24.8.1 fails to properly validate variable names extracted from alog files in the SplitHandler, allowing attackers to write files outside the split directory. Attackers can supply crafted alog files with backslash sequences in variable names to escape the output directory and append to arbitrary files on Windows systems.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-85455
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer over-read vulnerability in CMOOSCommPkt where a four-byte packet triggers out-of-bounds memory access during deserialization. Attackers can open a TCP connection to the MOOSDB port and send a crafted short packet to read memory before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-85454
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in CMOOSSerialPort::GetTelegram() that writes a NUL terminator one byte past the serial telegram stack buffer. Attackers controlling the serial line can send a full-length telegram to trigger the off-by-one write, corrupting the stack and potentially enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9
CVE-2026-85453
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 fails to escape database contents when rendering MOOSDB HTTP pages, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts. Any MOOS publisher can set variable values containing script payloads that execute in the browser of operators viewing the web interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-85452
SUMMARY

MOOS ui-moos through 50b9c6c contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in ScopeTabPane.cpp and ScopeGrid.cpp where client and variable names are formatted into fixed 1024-byte buffers using sprintf without length validation. Attackers can supply arbitrarily long MOOS identifiers that overflow the buffers when an operator selects process list entries or pokes variables, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8