Comparison Overview

Fort Dearborn Company

VS

Gateway Communications Inc.

Fort Dearborn Company

1530 Morse Avenue, Elk Grove, IL, 60007, US
Last Update: 2025-12-12
Between 750 and 799

Fort Dearborn Company is a leading supplier of high-impact decorative labels for the beverage, food, household products, nutraceutical, paint and coatings, personal care, private label/retail and spirits markets. We specialize in a variety of solutions to fit your packaging needs. Our customers benefit from seamless migration across various label types and print technologies to best match their requirements. We are committed to Customer Intimacy and providing customers with value, service and the highest quality attainable. We deliver solutions designed to meet customer's needs and exceed their expectations every single day. Headquartered in Elk Grove, Illinois, the company has 14 operating divisions in North America.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 859
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Gateway Communications Inc.

None
Last Update: 2025-12-12
Between 750 and 799

Gateway Communication Inc. has a mission to provide small to mid-sized companies and non-profits with the kind of responsive in-house marketing capabilities that larger firms enjoy. Direct mail is a complex undertaking that requires extensive knowledge of postal codes and regulations, data management and most importantly enough patience to handle the details. Gateway Communications offers a rare combination of print and mail services all under the same roof. From strategy and design, to implementation and analysis, and everything in between, we are able provide our customers with successful solutions. Contact us anytime at 503.257.0100 Visit us online at gatewayci.com

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 26
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fort-dearborn-company.jpeg
Fort Dearborn Company
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/gateway-communications-inc-.jpeg
Gateway Communications Inc.
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
Fort Dearborn Company
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Gateway Communications Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fort Dearborn Company in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gateway Communications Inc. in 2025.

Incident History — Fort Dearborn Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fort Dearborn Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Gateway Communications Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gateway Communications Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fort-dearborn-company.jpeg
Fort Dearborn Company
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gateway-communications-inc-.jpeg
Gateway Communications Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Fort Dearborn Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Gateway Communications Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Fort Dearborn Company company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Gateway Communications Inc. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Gateway Communications Inc. company and Fort Dearborn Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Gateway Communications Inc. company nor Fort Dearborn Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Fort Dearborn Company company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Gateway Communications Inc. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Gateway Communications Inc. company nor Fort Dearborn Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company company nor Gateway Communications Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fort Dearborn Company company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Gateway Communications Inc. company.

Fort Dearborn Company company employs more people globally than Gateway Communications Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fort Dearborn Company nor Gateway Communications Inc. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/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
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

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

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N