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

Comparison Overview

Eurolls | Coating DivisionEurolls | Coating Division
VS
Sherwin-WilliamsSherwin-Williams
Eurolls | Coating Division

Eurolls | Coating Division

Via Degli Ortolani, 54, Attimis, 33040, IT

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile

Eurolls SpA, parte del Gruppo Eurolls, è un produttore leader di rulli e cassette di laminazione per l'industria del tubo e del filo. Fondata nel 1987, Eurolls si è guadagnata una reputazione per la sua vasta conoscenza e competenza nel fornire prodotti di alta qualità ...

NAICS:3255
NAICS Definition:Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sherwin-Williams

Sherwin-Williams

101 Prospect Avenue N.E., Cleveland, 44101, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
820/1000Good

Our mission began more than 150 years ago in 1866 when Henry Sherwin and Edward Williams founded the company in Cleveland, Ohio. The duo went on to shape an industry and create a global legacy. That legacy continues on today as we look ahead and continue to innovate our...

NAICS:3255
NAICS Definition:Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing
Employees:49,043
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Eurolls | Coating Division

Eurolls | Coating Division

-
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
Sherwin-Williams

Sherwin-Williams

-
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 Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eurolls | Coating Division in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sherwin-Williams in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Eurolls | Coating Division (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eurolls | Coating Division 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 - Sherwin-Williams (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sherwin-Williams cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Eurolls | Coating Division

Eurolls | Coating Division

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sherwin-Williams

Sherwin-Williams

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16197
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. The affected element is the function handleMessageReceive of the file pkg/channels/feishu/feishu_64.go of the component Group Message Handler. Such manipulation leads to missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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-2026-16196
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. Impacted is the function isPrivateOrRestrictedIP of the file pkg/tools/integration/web.go of the component web_fetch. This manipulation causes server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 2efbe5d560e7ed9bc5209c203dc4aa6ecdbc7405. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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-2026-16195
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. This issue affects the function dispatchIncoming of the file pkg/channels/wecom/wecom.go of the component Group Message Handler. The manipulation results in incorrect authorization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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-2026-10130
SUMMARY

QueryWeaver contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to obtain valid session tokens for existing accounts by submitting a signup request with a known victim email address. The signup route unconditionally creates and links a new token to the matching Identity via a Cypher MERGE operation before checking whether the email belongs to an existing account, causing the server to return a valid authenticated session token for the victim's identity without requiring any prior credentials or user interaction.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-16194
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in zhayujie CowAgent up to 2.1.1. This affects the function WebFetch.execute of the file agent/tools/web_fetch/web_fetch.py. Executing a manipulation of the argument url can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. Upgrading to version 2.1.2 is able to mitigate this issue. This patch is called ea47f3097eed4f8295c4cb3d76ecb97e0f43d632. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The vendor was contacted early, responded in a very professional manner and quickly released a fixed version of the affected product.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-18
UPDATED
Date2026-07-18
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