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

Comparison Overview

FMC Australia and New ZealandFMC Australia and New Zealand
VS
AkzoNobelAkzoNobel
FMC Australia and New Zealand

FMC Australia and New Zealand

12 Julius Avenue , North Ryde, 2113, AU

Last Update: 30/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://ag.fmc.com/au/
754/1000Fair

FMC is an agricultural sciences company that advances farming through innovative and sustainable crop protection technologies. From our industry leading discovery pipeline, to unique application systems, to modern biological products, we are passionate about bringing ne...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

Christian Neefestraat 2, Amsterdam, Noord Holland, NL, 1077 WW

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.akzonobel.com
318/1000Critical

Since 1792, we’ve been supplying the innovative paints and coatings that help to color people’s lives and protect what matters most. Our world class portfolio of brands – including Dulux, International, Sikkens and Interpon – is trusted by customers around the globe. We...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:31,151
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FMC Australia and New Zealand

FMC Australia and New Zealand

-
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
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

-
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 Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FMC Australia and New Zealand in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

AkzoNobel has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - FMC Australia and New Zealand (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FMC Australia and New Zealand 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 - AkzoNobel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AkzoNobel 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...
FMC Australia and New Zealand

FMC Australia and New Zealand

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AKZINSHYDPOWWES1775047452
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AKZ1772649747
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AKZ1772583818

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8