Comparison Overview

Imperial Brands PLC

VS

LISI GROUP

Imperial Brands PLC

121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol, Bristol, GB, BS3 2LL
Last Update: 2025-11-24

We're a truly international company driven by a strong challenger culture. An inclusive, innovative global FMCG business in 120 markets supported by over 25,000 employees generating £30bn revenue. We put our customers at the heart of what we do, evolving to needs & expectations of tobacco & making a more meaningful contribution to harm reduction by building a successful next generation product business. Our sustainability strategy supports our commercial & public health ambitions, underpinned by high governance. Our respected and powerful brands – which include Davidoff, JPS and West cigarettes, Rizla papers and the pioneering vapour brand blu – have genuine international reach. As a matter of policy, Imperial Tobacco or its subsidiaries never requests or requires payment as part of any recruitment process. For more visit https://www.imperialbrandsplc.com/life-at-imperial

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 7,692
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

LISI GROUP

6, Rue Juvenal Viellard Grandvillars, Belfort, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté 90600, FR
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

LISI is a global industrial group specializing in the manufacture of assembly solutions and high value-added components for the aerospace, automotive and medical sectors. A partner to the world's leading players and driven by its long-term family values, LISI innovates and invests in the research and development of tomorrow's products; to meet the needs of its customers, particularly in terms of quality, safety and performance. The LISI Group differentiates itself by focusing on two strategic pillars: innovation and operational excellence, while integrating a strong CSR culture.

NAICS: 339
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/imperial-brands-plc.jpeg
Imperial Brands 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/lisi-group.jpeg
LISI GROUP
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
Imperial Brands PLC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LISI GROUP
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Imperial Brands PLC in 2025.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LISI GROUP in 2025.

Incident History — Imperial Brands PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Imperial Brands PLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — LISI GROUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LISI GROUP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/imperial-brands-plc.jpeg
Imperial Brands PLC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lisi-group.jpeg
LISI GROUP
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Imperial Brands PLC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LISI GROUP company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, LISI GROUP company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Imperial Brands PLC company.

In the current year, LISI GROUP company and Imperial Brands PLC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LISI GROUP company nor Imperial Brands PLC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither LISI GROUP company nor Imperial Brands PLC company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither LISI GROUP company nor Imperial Brands PLC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC company nor LISI GROUP company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Imperial Brands PLC company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LISI GROUP company.

LISI GROUP company employs more people globally than Imperial Brands PLC company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Imperial Brands PLC nor LISI GROUP holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H