Comparison Overview

KENT

VS

AkzoNobel

KENT

Auf der Höhe 49, Duisburg, D-47059, DE
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 700 and 749

With best chemical products we enable our customers to impress their customers. Our main goal is to secure the availability of mobility and create value for our customers by enabling them to generate new business or create exceptional experiences for their customers. Our customers appreciate our uncompromising quality, well-known reliability and innovative products which - deliver visible and measurable better work results - enable our customers to be more efficient and achieve substantial cost reduction - help to generate new business for our customers - enable our customers to create exceptional Customer Experience for their customers. Imprint: KENT Europe GmbH Auf der Höhe 49 | 47059 Duisburg Telefon: +49 203 60 717 - 0 E-Mail: [email protected] Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Vogt USt-ID: DE 313357017 Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB 29849 Data Policy: https://www.kenteurope.com/data-privacy/

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 428
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

AkzoNobel

Christian Neefestraat 2, Amsterdam, Noord Holland, 1077 WW, NL
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Since 1792, we’ve been supplying the innovative paints and coatings that help to color people’s lives and protect what matters most. Our world class portfolio of brands – including Dulux, International, Sikkens and Interpon – is trusted by customers around the globe. We’re active in more than 150 countries and use our expertise to sustain and enhance everyday life. Because we believe every surface is an opportunity. It’s what you’d expect from a pioneering and long-established paints company that’s dedicated to providing sustainable solutions and preserving the best of what we have today – while creating an even better tomorrow. Let’s paint the future together.

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 30,456
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kent-europe.jpeg
KENT
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/akzonobel.jpeg
AkzoNobel
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
KENT
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AkzoNobel
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KENT in 2025.

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AkzoNobel in 2025.

Incident History — KENT (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KENT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — AkzoNobel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AkzoNobel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kent-europe.jpeg
KENT
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Sharing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/akzonobel.jpeg
AkzoNobel
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

AkzoNobel company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to KENT company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

KENT company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas AkzoNobel company has not reported any.

In the current year, AkzoNobel company and KENT company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither AkzoNobel company nor KENT company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

KENT company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other AkzoNobel company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither AkzoNobel company nor KENT company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither KENT company nor AkzoNobel company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

AkzoNobel company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to KENT company.

AkzoNobel company employs more people globally than KENT company, reflecting its scale as a Chemical Manufacturing.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds HIPAA certification.

Neither KENT nor AkzoNobel holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.