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

Comparison Overview

LGC in partnership with ATCCLGC in partnership with ATCC
VS
AmgenAmgen
LGC in partnership with ATCC

LGC in partnership with ATCC

Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, GB

Last Update: 30/12/2025

View Profile
752/1000Fair

ATCC is a trusted and innovative global partner for high-quality authentic biomaterials, standards, and services. They are one of the world’s largest and most diverse resource centers providing human and animal cell lines, as well as molecular genomic tools, bacteria, v...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Amgen

Amgen

One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, 91320, US

Last Update: 26/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.amgen.com
798/1000Fair

Amgen harnesses the best of biology and technology to fight the world’s toughest diseases, and make people’s lives easier, fuller and longer. We helped establish the biotechnology industry, and we remain on the cutting-edge of innovation, using technology and human gene...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:39,128
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LGC in partnership with ATCC

LGC in partnership with ATCC

-
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
Amgen

Amgen

-
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 Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LGC in partnership with ATCC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

Amgen has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LGC in partnership with ATCC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LGC in partnership with ATCC 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 - Amgen (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amgen 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...
LGC in partnership with ATCC

LGC in partnership with ATCC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Amgen

Amgen

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AMGCEN1785529893
🔒 Incident : Breach
AMG552072825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-102335
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 fails to restrict the advanced_config field to administrators, allowing non-admin users with manage permissions to inject arbitrary nginx directives. Attackers can inject malicious nginx configuration such as alias directives to serve arbitrary files or control routing for their assigned hosts.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102334
SUMMARY

Nginx Proxy Manager through 2.16.0 lacks rate-limiting on authentication endpoints, allowing unauthenticated attackers to make unlimited password guesses against any account. Attackers can brute-force login credentials via POST /api/tokens and subsequently guess TOTP codes via POST /api/tokens/2fa to gain full session access and administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-102333
SUMMARY

httpdbg before 2.2.1 fails to validate URL schemes in recorded HTTP request URLs rendered as clickable links in the web interface. Attackers controlling traffic recorded by httpdbg can supply javascript: scheme URLs that execute malicious scripts in the application origin when clicked, allowing access to captured request and response data including headers and tokens.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-102332
SUMMARY

Dozzle versions before 11.1.2 fail to sanitize container display names when building ZIP archive entry names in the log download endpoint. Attackers who can label containers can use path traversal sequences to write files outside the extraction directory when users download and extract logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-101262
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Ziroom ZHOME A0101 1.0.1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /api/ZRQos/set_online_client. The manipulation of the argument ip leads to command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-28
UPDATED
Date2026-09-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3