Comparison Overview

Givaudan

VS

Dow

Givaudan

Givaudan International SA, 5, Chemin de la Parfumerie, Vernier, Geneva, CH, 1214
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849

Givaudan is a global leader in Fragrance & Beauty and Taste & Wellbeing. We celebrate the beauty of human experience by creating for happier, healthier lives with love for nature. Together with our customers we deliver food experiences, craft inspired fragrances, and develop beauty and wellbeing solutions that make people look and feel good. With over 163 locations in 52 countries and over 78 production sites, of which 31 are located in Europe, 22 in North America, 17 in Latin America, 8 in Asia-Pacific, and 1 across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, we are committed to driving purpose-led growth that makes a positive impact. Givaudan: Human by nature. www.givaudan.com

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 13,029
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Dow

2211 H.H. Dow Way, Midland, Michigan, 48674, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 800 and 849

We’re one of the world’s leading materials science companies, serving customers in high-growth markets such as packaging, infrastructure, mobility and consumer applications. Our global breadth, asset integration and scale, focused innovation, leading business positions and commitment to sustainability enable us to achieve profitable growth and help deliver a sustainable future. We operate manufacturing sites in 30 countries and employ approximately 36,000 people. Dow delivered sales of approximately $43 billion in 2024. References to Dow or the Company mean Dow Inc. and its subsidiaries. Learn more about us and our ambition to be the most innovative, customer-centric, inclusive and sustainable materials science company in the world by visiting www.dow.com.

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 45,252
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/givaudan.jpeg
Givaudan
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/dow-chemical.jpeg
Dow
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
Givaudan
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Dow
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Givaudan in 2025.

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dow in 2025.

Incident History — Givaudan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Givaudan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Dow (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dow cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/givaudan.jpeg
Givaudan
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dow-chemical.jpeg
Dow
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Givaudan company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Dow company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Dow company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Givaudan company.

In the current year, Dow company and Givaudan company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Dow company nor Givaudan company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Dow company nor Givaudan company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Dow company nor Givaudan company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Givaudan company nor Dow company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Dow company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Givaudan company.

Dow company employs more people globally than Givaudan company, reflecting its scale as a Chemical Manufacturing.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Givaudan nor Dow 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