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

Comparison Overview

Johnson Matthey Technology ReviewJohnson Matthey Technology Review
VS
EastmanEastman
Johnson Matthey Technology Review

Johnson Matthey Technology Review

N/A

Last Update: 02/12/2025

View Profile
753/1000Fair

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Eastman

Eastman

200 South Wilcox Drive, Kingsport, Tennessee, US, 37662

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eastman.com
779/1000Fair

Founded in 1920, Eastman is a global specialty materials company that produces a broad range of products found in items people use every day. With the purpose of enhancing the quality of life in a material way, Eastman works with customers to deliver innovative products...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:10,838
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Johnson Matthey Technology Review

Johnson Matthey Technology Review

-
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
Eastman

Eastman

-
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 Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Johnson Matthey Technology Review in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Eastman in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Johnson Matthey Technology Review (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson Matthey Technology Review cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Eastman (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Eastman cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Johnson Matthey Technology Review

Johnson Matthey Technology Review

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Eastman

Eastman

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9