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

Comparison Overview

GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)
VS
FLSmidthFLSmidth
GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)

GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)

Lange Veenteweg 19, Epe, Gelderland, 8161 PA, NL

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.georgfischer.nl
743/1000Moderate

GF Piping Systems is one of the three divisions within Georg Fischer Corporation and a leading provider of plastic and metal piping systems with global market presence. The product portfolio includes pipes, fittings, valves and the corresponding automation and jointing ...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:22
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
FLSmidth

FLSmidth

Vigerslev Allé 77, Copenhagen, Valby, DK, DK-2500

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fls.com
760/1000Fair

FLSmidth is a full flowsheet technology and service supplier to the global mining industry. We enable our customers to improve performance, lower operating costs and reduce environmental impact. MissionZero is our sustainability ambition towards zero emissions in mining...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:13,187
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)

GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)

-
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
FLSmidth

FLSmidth

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GF Piping Systems (Netherlands) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FLSmidth in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GF Piping Systems (Netherlands) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GF Piping Systems (Netherlands) 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 - FLSmidth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FLSmidth 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...
GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)

GF Piping Systems (Netherlands)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
FLSmidth

FLSmidth

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86304
SUMMARY

MojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor. parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAML2 calls Net::SAML2::Binding::POST->new with no cacert, cert_text or anchors argument, then passes the returned XML to Net::SAML2::Protocol::Assertion->new_from_xml with the IdP signing certificate as cacert. In Net::SAML2 before 0.86 that certificate guards only encrypted assertions, so the signature on an unencrypted assertion is checked against the certificate the response itself carries. An attacker starts a SAML login, then posts a response signed with a certificate of their own. The audience, InResponseTo and timestamp checks that follow are all satisfiable by the attacker, so the response authenticates any NameID it carries.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86232
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /pages/sup_del.php?type=supplier. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86231
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in mwiede jsch up to 2.28.5. Affected is the function getRevokedKeys of the file src/main/java/com/jcraft/jsch/KnownHosts.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument known_hosts results in improper check for certificate revocation. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.28.6 is able to address this issue. The patch is named 194a2f76a5c0f1c3f778565be3fd66bcafc42d23. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86228
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.3. This vulnerability affects the function exportXls of the file jeecg-boot/jeecg-boot-module/jeecg-boot-module-airag/src/main/java/org/jeecg/modules/airag/llm/controller/AiragModelController.java. Such manipulation of the argument credential leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.9.5 is able to resolve this issue. The name of the patch is a2be896f753936956ee6863b632b8e5a0231345c. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86227
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in valkey-io valkey up to 9.0.5/9.1.1. This affects the function kvstoreGetHashtable of the file src/kvstore.c. This manipulation of the argument didx causes out-of-bounds read. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 4691888e7fab3df128f0bde5750c9fde2ae552fa. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. Exploitation requires cluster mode plus attacker-controlled dump.rdb at startup (data-dir write access, replication feed, or a stored crafted RDB) - an attacker-position DoS at boot, not network pre-auth. The issue report was closed stating it "is worth fixing for the sake of memory safety… but I don't think it meets our bar for a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6