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

Comparison Overview

Glenmark PharmaceuticalsGlenmark Pharmaceuticals
VS
Bristol Myers SquibbBristol Myers Squibb
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

Glenmark House, B.D.Sawant Marg,, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400099

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
639/1000Poor

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited is a research-led, global organization committed to enriching lives. Innovation is deeply embedded in Glenmark’s culture; it is how we differentiate ourselves in our key markets and create greater value for our stakeholders. In our jou...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:14,777
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrence Township, 08648, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.bms.com
806/1000Good

At Bristol Myers Squibb, we work every day to transform patients’ lives through science. That work inspires some of the most interesting, meaningful, and life-changing careers you’ll experience. Join us and pursue innovative ideas alongside some of the brightest minds i...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:38,258
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

-
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
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

-
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 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals has 34.64% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bristol Myers Squibb in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Bristol Myers Squibb (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bristol Myers Squibb cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KOPGLE1777473227
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BRI533080525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ERT18610523
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IQV125614222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8