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
Charles River LaboratoriesCharles River Laboratories
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
Charles River Laboratories

Charles River Laboratories

251 Ballardvale Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts, US, 01887

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://criver.com
776/1000Fair

At Charles River, we are guided by our strong purpose—to create healthier lives—which centers around the patients who rely on the therapeutics we help to develop, the animals in our care, to our planet, and to the passionate and skilled people who are at the heart of ou...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:14,867
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Charles River Laboratories

Charles River Laboratories

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Charles River Laboratories in 2026.

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 - Charles River Laboratories (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Charles River Laboratories 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...
LGC in partnership with ATCC

LGC in partnership with ATCC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Charles River Laboratories

Charles River Laboratories

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2