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

Comparison Overview

GP HummingbirdGP Hummingbird
VS
Tetra PakTetra Pak
GP Hummingbird

GP Hummingbird

312 Plum St, Cincinnati, US

Last Update: 06/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.GPHummingbird.com
743/1000Moderate

Hummingbird® digital packaging solutions fulfills a full range of customer needs, from specialty versions to everyday large runs and beyond. The company is the first packaging supplier in North America to provide 110-inch wide web capability, which delivers high-quality...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak

70 Avenue Général-Guisan, CH-1009 PULLY/LAUSANNE, Case Postale 446, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tetrapak.com
789/1000Fair

We’re here to make food safe and available. It’s why we provide advanced food production systems, from product creation and recipe testing to processing, filling, packaging, logistics, services and beyond. We support almost every food and beverage category with tailored...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:25,859
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GP Hummingbird

GP Hummingbird

-
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
Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak

-
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 Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GP Hummingbird in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tetra Pak in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GP Hummingbird (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GP Hummingbird 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 - Tetra Pak (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tetra Pak 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...
GP Hummingbird

GP Hummingbird

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9