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

Comparison Overview

Future-Ready ManufacturingFuture-Ready Manufacturing
VS
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Future-Ready Manufacturing

Future-Ready Manufacturing

379 Thornall St, Edison, 08837, US

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile

The manufacturing industry is at the cusp of a profound transformation driven by advanced technologies. TCS Manufacturing stands at the forefront of this revolution, setting new benchmarks and driving industry transformation. Our proactive and innovation-led approach is...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:72
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

1000 Stanley Drive, New Britain, CT, US, 06053

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
791/1000Fair

For the builders and protectors, for the makers and explorers, for those shaping and reshaping our world through hard work and inspiration, Stanley Black & Decker provides the tools and innovative solutions you can trust to get the job done—and we have since 1843. You ...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:29,016
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Future-Ready Manufacturing

Future-Ready Manufacturing

-
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
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Future-Ready Manufacturing in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Future-Ready Manufacturing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Future-Ready Manufacturing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. 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...
Future-Ready Manufacturing

Future-Ready Manufacturing

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1