Comparison Overview

ICON plc

VS

CSL

ICON plc

ICON plc, Dublin, undefined, 18, IE
Last Update: 2025-12-10
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.iconplc.com

Since our foundation in Dublin, Ireland in 1990, our mission has been to help our clients to accelerate the development of drugs and devices that save lives and improve quality of life. We do this by delivering best in class information, solutions and performance, with an unyielding focus on quality at all times. We offer a full range of consulting, development and commercialisation services from a global network of offices in 53 countries. We focus our innovation on the factors that are critical to our clients – reducing time to market, reducing cost, and increasing quality – and our global team of experts has extensive experience in a broad range of therapeutic areas.

NAICS: 541714
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees: 36,427
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

CSL

655 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, 3000, AU
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849
https://www.csl.com/

CSL is a leading global biopharma company with a dynamic portfolio of lifesaving medicines, including those that treat haemophilia and immune deficiencies, vaccines to prevent influenza, and therapies in iron deficiency, dialysis and nephrology. Since our start in 1916, we have been driven by our promise to save lives using the latest technologies. Today, CSL – including our businesses, CSL Behring, CSL Seqirus, and CSL Vifor – provides lifesaving products to patients in more than 100 countries and employs 29,000+ people. Our unique combination of commercial strength, R&D focus and operational excellence enables us to identify, develop and deliver innovations so our patients can live life to the fullest. See our community guidelines: https://bit.ly/3Bs17Ra

NAICS: 541714
NAICS Definition: Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees: 23,463
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/icon-plc-2.jpeg
ICON plc
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/csl.jpeg
CSL
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
ICON plc
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CSL
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ICON plc in 2025.

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CSL in 2025.

Incident History — ICON plc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ICON plc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CSL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CSL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/icon-plc-2.jpeg
ICON plc
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/csl.jpeg
CSL
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CSL company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to ICON plc company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, CSL company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to ICON plc company.

In the current year, CSL company and ICON plc company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CSL company nor ICON plc company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CSL company nor ICON plc company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither CSL company nor ICON plc company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither ICON plc company nor CSL company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ICON plc company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CSL company.

ICON plc company employs more people globally than CSL company, reflecting its scale as a Biotechnology Research.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ICON plc nor CSL holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References