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

Comparison Overview

GOLD FIELDSGOLD FIELDS
VS
ValeVale
GOLD FIELDS

GOLD FIELDS

150 Helen Road, Sandton, Johannesburg, 2196, ZA

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.goldfields.com
810/1000Good

Gold Fields is a globally diversified gold producer with nine mines in Australia, Chile, Ghana, Perú and South Africa, and one project in Canada. We aim to create positive and sustainable value for our employees, communities, capital providers, governments and business...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:9,632
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vale

Vale

Praia de Botafogo, 186, Salas 501 a 1901 , Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BR, 22250-145

Last Update: 10/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.vale.com
820/1000Good

We are a global mining company producing iron ore, pellets, and nickel, and we are committed to becoming one of the safest, most trustworthy mining company in the world. With a workforce of 120,000 employees, we work every day to transform natural resources into prosper...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:68,959
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GOLD FIELDS

GOLD FIELDS

-
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
Vale

Vale

-
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 Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GOLD FIELDS in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vale in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GOLD FIELDS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GOLD FIELDS 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 - Vale (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vale 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...
GOLD FIELDS

GOLD FIELDS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vale

Vale

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90603
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Anil-matcha Open-Generative-AI up to 1.0.11/2.0.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /api/upload-binary of the component S3 Upload. Such manipulation of the argument x-proxy-target-url leads to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The name of the patch is f013270957f75e439eaf97eb2a93decb32a4543e. Applying a patch is advised to resolve this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-90602
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Anil-matcha Open-Generative-AI up to 1.0.11/2.0.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function renderHistory of the file ImageStudio.js of the component Studio Components. This manipulation causes cross site scripting. The attack may be initiated remotely. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-90601
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in getzep graphiti up to 0.30.2. Affected is an unknown function of the file server/graph_service/main.py of the component REST API. The manipulation results in improper authentication. The attack can be launched remotely. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-90600
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /pages/inv_edit1.php. The manipulation of the argument ID leads to sql injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
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-2026-15892
SUMMARY

The mcumgr SMP settings-management group handlers settings_mgmt_read(), settings_mgmt_write(), and settings_mgmt_delete() in subsys/mgmt/mcumgr/grp/settings_mgmt/src/settings_mgmt.c allocate a key_name buffer (and, for read, a data buffer) via k_malloc() when CONFIG_MCUMGR_GRP_SETTINGS_BUFFER_TYPE_HEAP is enabled, relying on the end: label to k_free() them. When CONFIG_MCUMGR_GRP_SETTINGS_ACCESS_HOOK is also enabled and the application access hook rejects a request by returning status MGMT_CB_ERROR_RC, the handler executed return ret_rc; directly, bypassing end: and leaking the heap allocation on every rejected request. The settings handlers are reachable over the unauthenticated SMP transport (Bluetooth LE, UART, or UDP, depending on product configuration). The access hook is the mechanism applications use to deny unauthorized settings access, and MGMT_CB_ERROR_RC is a common rejection style, so an attacker who can send settings read/write/delete commands that the hook rejects triggers a heap leak on each attempt. Because the leaked memory is never reclaimed until reboot, a sustained stream of rejected requests monotonically exhausts the kernel heap until k_malloc() fails, denying mcumgr service and impacting any other heap consumer on the device — a denial of service. The impact is availability-only; there is no memory corruption or information disclosure. Only configurations that select the heap buffer type, enable the access hook, and register a hook that returns MGMT_CB_ERROR_RC are affected (the default stack buffer type cannot leak).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-13
UPDATED
Date2026-09-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9