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

Comparison Overview

GDMGDM
VS
Yara InternationalYara International
GDM

GDM

Monseñor Magliano 3061, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires 1642, AR

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.gdmseeds.com
774/1000Fair

We are a leading company in plant genetics for row crops, present in all the relevant markets worldwide, sustainably contributing to productivity.

NAICS:111
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Yara International

Yara International

Drammensveien 131, Oslo, NO, N-0277

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.yara.com
787/1000Fair

Yara's mission is to responsibly feed the world and protect the planet. We pursue a strategy of sustainable value growth through reducing emissions from crop nutrition production and developing low-emission energy solutions. Yara’s ambition is focused on growing a natur...

NAICS:111
NAICS Definition:Crop Production
Employees:14,843
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GDM

GDM

-
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
Yara International

Yara International

-
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 Farming Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GDM in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Farming Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yara International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GDM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GDM 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 - Yara International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yara International 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...
GDM

GDM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Yara International

Yara International

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3