Comparison Overview

General Mills

VS

Patanjali Foods

General Mills

One General Mills Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55426, US
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

We exist to make food the world loves. But we do more than that. General Mills is a place that prioritizes being a force for good, a place to expand learning, explore new perspectives and reimagine new possibilities, every day. We look for people who want to bring their best—bold thinkers with big hearts who challenge one other and grow together. Because becoming the undisputed leader in food means surrounding ourselves with people who are hungry for what’s next.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 24,359
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Patanjali Foods

Haridwar, Uttarakhand, IN
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

For almost four decades, Patanjali Foods has championed India’s wellness revolution. Founded in 1986, we began with a simple mission: making swadeshi products, affordable and quality-driven for every household. Today, we are a leading FMCG force, offering a wide range of household essentials. From nourishing foods to trusted home and personal care solutions we meet the highest standards of purity and reliability. Together, we’re building a healthier tomorrow. Rooted in Indian heritage, we instill pride in every Indian home.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 10,001
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/general-mills.jpeg
General Mills
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/patanjali-foods.jpeg
Patanjali Foods
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
General Mills
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Patanjali Foods
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for General Mills in 2025.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Patanjali Foods in 2025.

Incident History — General Mills (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Mills cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Patanjali Foods (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Patanjali Foods cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/general-mills.jpeg
General Mills
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/patanjali-foods.jpeg
Patanjali Foods
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Patanjali Foods company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to General Mills company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

General Mills company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Patanjali Foods company has not reported any.

In the current year, Patanjali Foods company and General Mills company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Patanjali Foods company nor General Mills company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

General Mills company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Patanjali Foods company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Patanjali Foods company nor General Mills company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither General Mills company nor Patanjali Foods company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

General Mills company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Patanjali Foods company.

General Mills company employs more people globally than Patanjali Foods company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds HIPAA certification.

Neither General Mills nor Patanjali Foods holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H