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

Comparison Overview

ERLEADA® for HCPERLEADA® for HCP
VS
Novo NordiskNovo Nordisk
ERLEADA® for HCP

ERLEADA® for HCP

N/A

Last Update: 27/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.erleadahcp.com/
770/1000Fair

ERLEADA® (apalutamide) is an androgen receptor inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with: • Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) • Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) This information is for US healthcare profess...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Novo Alle, Bagsværd, 2880, DK

Last Update: 13/07/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.novonordisk.com
674/1000Weak

We’re not your typical healthcare company. In a modern world of quick fixes, we focus on solutions to defeat serious chronic disease and create long-term health. We seek out new ideas and put people first as we push the boundaries of science, make healthcare more acces...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:62,361
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ERLEADA® for HCP

ERLEADA® for HCP

-
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
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

-
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 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ERLEADA® for HCP in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Novo Nordisk has 188.46% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - ERLEADA® for HCP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ERLEADA® for HCP 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 - Novo Nordisk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Novo Nordisk 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...
ERLEADA® for HCP

ERLEADA® for HCP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
NOV1781951217
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV1781195765
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ORA1780418023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA