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

Comparison Overview

Hoegemeyer HybridsHoegemeyer Hybrids
VS
UPLUPL
Hoegemeyer Hybrids

Hoegemeyer Hybrids

2905 E Morningside Rd, Fremont, Nebraska 68025, US

Last Update: 02/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.therightseed.com
754/1000Fair

Trust that farmer success is our number one priority. Trust that we will work with you to understand your needs and unique growing conditions. Trust that we will only recommend the right seed for your acres. Why? Because we live and work here. We serve our neighbors, ou...

NAICS:111
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:45
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UPL

UPL

UPL House, Mumbai, 400051, IN

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.upl-ltd.com
774/1000Fair

UPL Ltd. (NSE: UPL & BSE: 512070) is a global provider of sustainable agriculture products & solutions, with annual revenue exceeding $5 billion. As one of the top 5 agriculture solutions companies worldwide, our robust portfolio consists of biologicals and traditional ...

NAICS:111
NAICS Definition:Crop Production
Employees:13,010
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hoegemeyer Hybrids

Hoegemeyer Hybrids

-
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
UPL

UPL

-
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 Farming Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hoegemeyer Hybrids in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Farming Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UPL in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hoegemeyer Hybrids (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hoegemeyer Hybrids 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 - UPL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UPL 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...
Hoegemeyer Hybrids

Hoegemeyer Hybrids

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UPL

UPL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-45537
SUMMARY

OpenSIPS is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server implementation. In versions prior to 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1, the construct_uri() function concatenates multiple URI components (protocol, username, domain, port, params) into a fixed 1024-byte global BSS buffer without any bounds checking. When a routing script calls construct_uri() with an attacker-controlled username, a combined component length exceeding 1024 bytes overflows the buffer, corrupting adjacent global data with attacker-controlled content. The overflow reaches disable_503_translation, a global flag controlling SIP 503 response handling, allowing an attacker to deterministically set the flag via the URI username and alter the server's routing behavior for subsequent messages. Because the same buffer is shared with contact_builder(), the overflow also corrupts that function's data, and without a memory sanitizer the adjacent globals are silently overwritten on every request containing a long username. This issue has been fixed in versions 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-18819
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-18818
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Ehco1996 django-sspanel up to 2023.12.26. This affects the function TicketDetailView of the file apps/sspanel/views.py of the component Support Ticket Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
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: 5.3
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: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
2.8
CVE-2026-70620
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit 87babb5 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows admin-privileged attackers to direct the server to probe internal network resources by supplying arbitrary URLs to the embedding endpoint configuration without scheme, host, IP range, or DNS rebind validation. Attackers can submit loopback addresses, RFC 1918 ranges, or link-local addresses through the embedding endpoint API to partially read responses from cloud instance metadata services, internal APIs, and other hosts reachable from the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-70619
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit bf325f6 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated non-admin users to manage server-wide embedding backend configuration by invoking endpoint management routes that verify session authentication but omit the admin authorization guard. Attackers can supply an attacker-controlled URL to overwrite the embedding backend persisted in the endpoint configuration file and process environment, causing all subsequent embedding operations including chat messages, RAG queries, memory entries, and vault text to be transmitted in plaintext to the attacker-controlled destination, or delete the endpoint configuration to deny embedding service to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8