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

Comparison Overview

Grupo MéxicoGrupo México
VS
AlcoaAlcoa
Grupo México

Grupo México

Campos Elíseos 400, Ciudad de México, 11000, MX

Last Update: 05/10/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gmexico.com
826/1000Good

Somos una empresa líder en producción de cobre, transporte ferroviario e infraestructura. A lo largo de 80 años, hemos evolucionado y nos hemos diversificado para convertirnos en una empresa estable, sustentable, siempre a la vanguardia tecnológica. Desde 1966 cotiz...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:3,748
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Alcoa

Alcoa

201 Isabella St., Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA, US, 15212

Last Update: 19/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.alcoa.com
787/1000Fair

Recruitment Fraud Alert: Alcoa has become aware of some fraudulent employment offers being sent to candidates via social media channels. Alcoa never makes job offers or asks for bank details through social media. Always verify the authenticity of any recruitment communi...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:17,448
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Grupo México

Grupo México

-
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
Alcoa

Alcoa

-
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 Grupo México in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alcoa in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Grupo México (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grupo México 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 - Alcoa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alcoa 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...
Grupo México

Grupo México

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Alcoa

Alcoa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2