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

Comparison Overview

LaddawnLaddawn
VS
AmcorAmcor
Laddawn

Laddawn

155 Jackson Rd, Devens, 01434, US

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://myberry.com
721/1000Moderate

Look up in the sky…it’s a bird…it’s a plane…it’s a packaging manufacturer. Defying gravity, cynics and limits is just plain old fun. And good business. At Laddawn, we are constantly working to elevate our game. We sell high-quality packaging products. And we do it unli...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:109
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Amcor

Amcor

Thurgauerstrasse 34, Zurich, CH, CH-8050

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.amcor.com
783/1000Fair

As a global leader in packaging solutions for consumer and healthcare products, our industry-leading innovation capabilities, global scale and technical expertise help our customers grow and meet the needs of millions of consumers every day. We accelerate the possible b...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:33,221
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Laddawn

Laddawn

-
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
Amcor

Amcor

-
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 Laddawn in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Amcor in 2026.

Incidents

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

Laddawn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Amcor 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...
Laddawn

Laddawn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LAD714090125
Amcor

Amcor

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8