Comparison Overview

Intermountain Regional Landfill

VS

Recycle Southern Limited

Intermountain Regional Landfill

800 S. Allen Ranch Road, Fairfield, Utah, 84013, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Intermountain Regional Landfill (“IRL”) was established in 2011 to provide responsible and sustainable waste disposal services for residents in Salt Lake, Utah, and other neighboring counties. IRL’s primary objective is ensuring our facility provides safe, efficient, and responsible disposal of trash, construction debris, and other non-hazardous materials for our municipal, commercial, and residential customers. Our team is comprised of experienced industry professionals that know the value and importance of sharing their insights to continuously innovate and improve our operations. This has resulted in the development and operation of our state-of-the-art, modern, disposal facility. IRL’s commitment to innovative, responsible, and safe waste disposal has helped IRL become one of the largest landfills in the state.

NAICS: 562
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Recycle Southern Limited

Elbridge Farm Recycling Centre, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO21 5EF, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Recycle Southern Ltd operate a fleet of tippers, grabs, skips, roros and artics providing waste removal, aggregate supply and bulk haulage in and around West Sussex and South East Hampshire. Fully licenced Waste Transfer Facility,open to third parties for tipping non hazardous waste, as well as collection of Primary and Recycled Aggregates. Get in touch with your requirements!

NAICS: 562
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 14
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/intermountain-regional-landfill.jpeg
Intermountain Regional Landfill
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/recycle-southern-limited.jpeg
Recycle Southern Limited
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
Intermountain Regional Landfill
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Recycle Southern Limited
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Waste Treatment and Disposal Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intermountain Regional Landfill in 2025.

Incidents vs Waste Treatment and Disposal Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Recycle Southern Limited in 2025.

Incident History — Intermountain Regional Landfill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intermountain Regional Landfill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Recycle Southern Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Recycle Southern Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intermountain-regional-landfill.jpeg
Intermountain Regional Landfill
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/recycle-southern-limited.jpeg
Recycle Southern Limited
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Intermountain Regional Landfill company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Recycle Southern Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Recycle Southern Limited company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Intermountain Regional Landfill company.

In the current year, Recycle Southern Limited company and Intermountain Regional Landfill company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Recycle Southern Limited company nor Intermountain Regional Landfill company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Recycle Southern Limited company nor Intermountain Regional Landfill company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Recycle Southern Limited company nor Intermountain Regional Landfill company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill company nor Recycle Southern Limited company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill company nor Recycle Southern Limited company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Recycle Southern Limited company employs more people globally than Intermountain Regional Landfill company, reflecting its scale as a Waste Treatment and Disposal.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Intermountain Regional Landfill nor Recycle Southern Limited 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