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

Comparison Overview

Jindal FilmsJindal Films
VS
Graphic Packaging InternationalGraphic Packaging International
Jindal Films

Jindal Films

11 rue de l'industrie , Windhof, undefined, 8399, LU

Last Update: 22/01/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.jindalfilms.com/
746/1000Moderate

Jindal Films is a global leader in the development and manufacture of specialty films with almost 50 years of expertise for flexible packaging and labelling markets. Within Flexible Packaging, Jindal Films provides films that lead the market in terms of barrier to mois...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:802
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

1500 Riveredge Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30328

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.graphicpkg.com
770/1000Fair

Graphic Packaging Holding Company (NYSE: GPK), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, designs and produces consumer packaging, made primarily from renewable or recycled materials. An industry leader in innovation, the Company is committed to reducing the environmental footp...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:11,524
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Jindal Films

Jindal Films

-
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
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

-
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 Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jindal Films in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Graphic Packaging International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Jindal Films (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jindal Films 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 - Graphic Packaging International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Graphic Packaging International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Jindal Films

Jindal Films

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GRA406072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA