Comparison Overview

Eastman

VS

Bayer

Eastman

200 South Wilcox Drive, Kingsport, Tennessee, US, 37662
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1920, Eastman is a global specialty materials company that produces a broad range of products found in items people use every day. With the purpose of enhancing the quality of life in a material way, Eastman works with customers to deliver innovative products and solutions while maintaining a commitment to safety and sustainability. The company’s innovation-driven growth model takes advantage of world-class technology platforms, deep customer engagement, and differentiated application development to grow its leading positions in attractive end markets such as transportation, building and construction, and consumables. As a globally inclusive company, Eastman employs approximately 14,000 people around the world and serves customers in more than 100 countries. The company had 2024 revenue of approximately $9.4 billion and is headquartered in Kingsport, Tennessee, USA.

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 10,503
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Bayer

Kaiser-Wilhelm-Allee, Leverkusen, North Rhine-Westphalia, DE, 51373
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of healthcare and nutrition. We design our products and services to serve the most essential human needs of health and nutrition. At the same time, we strive to address some of the world’s biggest challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. At Bayer, we’re committed to driving sustainable development and generate a positive impact with our businesses. Through the power of science, we’re pioneering new possibilities that advance life for all of us. That means reimagining how we care for ourselves and one another by empowering everyday health, improving approaches to patient care, and finding better ways to nourish our communities around the world. Data Privacy Statement & Imprint: https://www.bayer.com/en/glob-li-bayer-en-dps-imprint

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 87,546
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eastman.jpeg
Eastman
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/bayer.jpeg
Bayer
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
Eastman
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Bayer
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eastman in 2025.

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Bayer has 0.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Eastman (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eastman cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Bayer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bayer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/eastman.jpeg
Eastman
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bayer.jpeg
Bayer
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Vendor Vulnerabilities, Semantic Incompatibilities in Data Systems, Lack of Standardized AI Governance, Cross-Border Data Sharing Weaknesses
Motivation: Financial Gain (Data Monetization), Exploitation of Regulatory Gaps, Competitive Advantage via Unauthorized Data Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Eastman company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bayer company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bayer company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Eastman company has not reported any.

In the current year, Bayer company has reported more cyber incidents than Eastman company.

Neither Bayer company nor Eastman company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bayer company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Eastman company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Bayer company nor Eastman company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Eastman company nor Bayer company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Bayer company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Eastman company.

Bayer company employs more people globally than Eastman company, reflecting its scale as a Chemical Manufacturing.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Eastman nor Bayer 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