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

Comparison Overview

GSKGSK
VS
TakedaTakeda
GSK

GSK

79 New Oxford Street, London, WC1A 1DG, GB

Last Update: 10/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gsk.com
823/1000Good

We are uniting science, technology and talent to get ahead of disease together. Our community guidelines: https://gsk.to/socialmedia

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:91,975
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Takeda

Takeda

Tokyo, JP

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.takeda.com/
815/1000Good

We strive to transform lives. While the science we advance is constantly evolving, our core purpose is enduring. For more than two centuries, our values have guided us to do what’s right for patients and for society. We know that changing lives requires us to do things...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:37,228
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GSK

GSK

-
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
Takeda

Takeda

-
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)

No incidents recorded for GSK in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Takeda in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GSK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GSK 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 - Takeda (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Takeda 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...
GSK

GSK

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Takeda

Takeda

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84411
SUMMARY

The web management service in affected RouterOS versions contains an integer underflow in its HTTP request body handling that is reachable before authentication. This can be leveraged by an unauthenticated network attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution as root, or to cause a denial of service, using a single crafted request.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105051
SUMMARY

Denuvo Anti-Tamper through 2026-03-04 allows bypass of a hypervisor presence check via CPUID interception (SimpleSvm.sys on AMD; hyperkd.sys and hyperhv.dll on Intel).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 1.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
0.5
CVE-2026-105050
SUMMARY

PeaZip before 11.3.0, in a non-default configuration, is vulnerable to OS command injection via a filename in an archive because "quotation character already used in the string" is mishandled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-105049
SUMMARY

Zilliz Attu before 3.0.0 has a Playground feature that does not require authentication for proxying arbitrary HTTP and HTTPS requests to URLs on the public internet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105048
SUMMARY

The Playground feature of Zilliz Attu before 3.0.0 allows SSRF (proxying of requests to private IP addresses).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2