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

Comparison Overview

DW ReusablesDW Reusables
VS
Graphic Packaging InternationalGraphic Packaging International
DW Reusables

DW Reusables

Nijverheidsstraat 26, BILZEN, Limburg, 3740, BE

Last Update: 26/12/2025

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://dwreusables.com
742/1000Moderate

Loop Ready Packaging for Future Generations! DW Reusables is a worldwide leader in returnable and reusable packaging such as crates, pallets, and totes & trays.

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:88
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

1500 Riveredge Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30328

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.graphicpkg.com
771/1000Fair

Graphic Packaging Holding Company (NYSE: GPK), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, designs and produces consumer packaging, made primarily from renewable or recycled materials. An industry leader in innovation, the Company is committed to reducing the environmental footp...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:11,524
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DW Reusables

DW Reusables

-
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
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

-
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 Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DW Reusables in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Graphic Packaging International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DW Reusables (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DW Reusables 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 - Graphic Packaging International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Graphic Packaging International 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...
DW Reusables

DW Reusables

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GRA406072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9