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
Gilead SciencesGilead Sciences
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
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, 94404, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gilead.com
804/1000Good

At Gilead, we set – and achieve – bold ambitions to create a healthier world for all people. From our pioneering virology medicines to our growing impact in oncology, we're delivering innovations once thought impossible in medicine. Our focus goes beyond medicines, and ...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:14,605
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

-
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 Gilead Sciences 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 - Gilead Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gilead Sciences 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.
Gilead Sciences

Gilead Sciences

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GIL957091725
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GIL1527222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8