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

Comparison Overview

Hikma PharmaceuticalsHikma Pharmaceuticals
VS
Bristol Myers SquibbBristol Myers Squibb
Hikma Pharmaceuticals

Hikma Pharmaceuticals

1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.hikma.com
767/1000Fair

For almost 50 years, we’ve been creating high-quality medicines and making them accessible to the people who need them. We are a trusted, reliable partner and dependable source of over 800* high-quality generic, specialty and branded pharmaceutical products that hospita...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:10,252
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
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
Hikma Pharmaceuticals

Hikma 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)

No incidents recorded for Hikma Pharmaceuticals in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bristol Myers Squibb in 2026.

Incidents

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

Hikma Pharmaceuticals 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 - 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...
Hikma Pharmaceuticals

Hikma Pharmaceuticals

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2