Comparison Overview

Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP)

VS

RPC Group Limited

Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP)

5010 Space Center Dr, San Antonio, Texas, 78218, US
Last Update: 2025-03-06 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

IPP is a leading global manufacturer of HDPE fittings used in Waterworks and infrastructure, Metals & Mining, Oil & Energy, Geothermal, Landfill, Wastewater, and other industries. It is the originator of the patented Deltaflex Convoluted Backing Ring which is now an industry standard, as well as a manufacturer of HDPE fittings. Headquartered in San Antonio with manufacturing in San Antonio and worldwide. IPP markets and sells its products worldwide.

NAICS: 326
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 63
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

RPC Group Limited

Sapphire House Rushden, Northamptonshire NN10 6FB, GB
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

Established in the UK in 1991, RPC is today a global design and engineering company specialising in polymer conversion in packaging and non-packaging markets, with centres of excellence worldwide and a turnover in excess of โ‚ฌ4bn. Throughout our growth we have continued to focus on our core principles of establishing a devolved structure of specialist operations, all of which have expertise in individual processing technologies and in-depth knowledge and understanding of particular end markets. This enables us to develop tailored solutions to meet specific customer requirements. And our increasingly wide global footprint means we are ideally placed to support customers on a local, national and international basis, as well as providing multi-site security of supply. With industry leading product design capabilities across all conversion technologies, we drive innovation throughout all our product and technical components development work for packaging and non-packaging applications โ€“ delivering excellence in choice, manufacturing and customer service.

NAICS: 3261
NAICS Definition: Plastics Product Manufacturing
Employees: 10,001+
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/improved-piping-products.jpeg
Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP)
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rpc-group-plc.jpeg
RPC Group Limited
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
RPC Group Limited
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Plastics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) in 2025.

Incidents vs Plastics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RPC Group Limited in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” RPC Group Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RPC Group Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/improved-piping-products.jpeg
Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP)
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rpc-group-plc.jpeg
RPC Group Limited
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company and RPC Group Limited company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, RPC Group Limited company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company.

In the current year, RPC Group Limited company and Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither RPC Group Limited company nor Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither RPC Group Limited company nor Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither RPC Group Limited company nor Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company nor RPC Group Limited company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

RPC Group Limited company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company.

Improved Piping Products, Inc. (IPP) company employs more people globally than RPC Group Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Plastics Manufacturing.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tricked a user into giving up their Geode session credentials to submit malicious commands on the target system on behalf of the authenticated user. This issue affects Apache Geode: versions 1.10 through 1.15.1 Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.15.2, which fixes the issue.

Description

The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1.12 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'theme_editor_theme' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to achieve remote code execution via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Local access is required to approach this attack. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.0.0.1 is able to mitigate this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The vendor was contacted beforehand and was able to provide a patch very early.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.8
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: mscc: ocelot: Fix use-after-free caused by cyclic delayed work The origin code calls cancel_delayed_work() in ocelot_stats_deinit() to cancel the cyclic delayed work item ocelot->stats_work. However, cancel_delayed_work() may fail to cancel the work item if it is already executing. While destroy_workqueue() does wait for all pending work items in the work queue to complete before destroying the work queue, it cannot prevent the delayed work item from being rescheduled within the ocelot_check_stats_work() function. This limitation exists because the delayed work item is only enqueued into the work queue after its timer expires. Before the timer expiration, destroy_workqueue() has no visibility of this pending work item. Once the work queue appears empty, destroy_workqueue() proceeds with destruction. When the timer eventually expires, the delayed work item gets queued again, leading to the following warning: workqueue: cannot queue ocelot_check_stats_work on wq ocelot-switch-stats WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at kernel/workqueue.c:2255 __queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RIP: 0010:__queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RSP: 0018:ffff88806d108b10 EFLAGS: 00010086 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000101 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 0000000000000027 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff88806d123e88 RBP: ffffffff813c3170 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed100da247d2 R10: ffffed100da247d1 R11: ffff88806d123e8b R12: ffff88800c00f000 R13: ffff88800d7285c0 R14: ffff88806d0a5580 R15: ffff88800d7285a0 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880e5725000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fe18e45ea10 CR3: 0000000005e6c000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <IRQ> ? kasan_report+0xc6/0xf0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 call_timer_fn+0x25/0x1c0 __run_timer_base.part.0+0x3be/0x8c0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? rcu_sched_clock_irq+0xb06/0x27d0 ? __pfx___run_timer_base.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? try_to_wake_up+0xb15/0x1960 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x603/0x7e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 ? sched_balance_trigger+0x1c0/0x9f0 ? sched_tick+0x221/0x5a0 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 ? tick_nohz_handler+0x339/0x440 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 __walk_groups.isra.0+0x42/0x150 tmigr_handle_remote+0x1f4/0x2e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote+0x10/0x10 ? ktime_get+0x60/0x140 ? lapic_next_event+0x11/0x20 ? clockevents_program_event+0x1d4/0x2a0 ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x322/0x780 handle_softirqs+0x16a/0x550 irq_exit_rcu+0xaf/0xe0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x80 </IRQ> ... The following diagram reveals the cause of the above warning: CPU 0 (remove) | CPU 1 (delayed work callback) mscc_ocelot_remove() | ocelot_deinit() | ocelot_check_stats_work() ocelot_stats_deinit() | cancel_delayed_work()| ... | queue_delayed_work() destroy_workqueue() | (wait a time) | __queue_work() //UAF The above scenario actually constitutes a UAF vulnerability. The ocelot_stats_deinit() is only invoked when initialization failure or resource destruction, so we must ensure that any delayed work items cannot be rescheduled. Replace cancel_delayed_work() with disable_delayed_work_sync() to guarantee proper cancellation of the delayed work item and ensure completion of any currently executing work before the workqueue is deallocated. A deadlock concern was considered: ocelot_stats_deinit() is called in a process context and is not holding any locks that the delayed work item might also need. Therefore, the use of the _sync() variant is safe here. This bug was identified through static analysis. To reproduce the issue and validate the fix, I simulated ocelot-swit ---truncated---