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

Comparison Overview

INEOS TyssedalINEOS Tyssedal
VS
BHPBHP
INEOS Tyssedal

INEOS Tyssedal

Naustbakken 1, Tyssedal, N-5770, NO

Last Update: 22/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tizir.co.uk/
755/1000Fair

INEOS Tyssedal ilmenite upgrading facility has a long and stable production history, having commenced operations in 1986. It is one of only six such operating facilities of its type in the world and the only one in Europe. INEOS Tyssedal is part of INEOS. ETI upgrades ...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:51
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
BHP

BHP

171 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000, AU

Last Update: 03/08/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.bhp.com/
800/1000Good

We are supplying the resources the world needs to help build a better, clearer future. Copper for renewable energy. Potash for sustainable farming. Iron ore and metallurgical coal for the steel needed for global infrastructure and the energy transition. #FutureIsClear ...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:40,388
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
INEOS Tyssedal

INEOS Tyssedal

-
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
BHP

BHP

-
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 Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for INEOS Tyssedal in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

BHP has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - INEOS Tyssedal (X = Date, Y = Severity)

INEOS Tyssedal 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 - BHP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BHP 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...
INEOS Tyssedal

INEOS Tyssedal

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
BHP

BHP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TELKIWALDBHP1783413728

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8