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

Comparison Overview

LGC AXIO Proficiency TestingLGC AXIO Proficiency Testing
VS
AkzoNobelAkzoNobel
LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing

LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing

1 Chamberhall Green, Bury, BL9 0AP, GB

Last Update: 14/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://lgcstandards.com/AXIO
754/1000Fair

AXIO Proficiency Testing understands that laboratories need confidence in their measurements and the methods they use to produce them. It’s why for the past 40 years we’ve been leading the direction of proficiency testing, bringing our technical expertise and influence ...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

Christian Neefestraat 2, Amsterdam, Noord Holland, NL, 1077 WW

Last Update: 16/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.akzonobel.com
396/1000Critical

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...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:31,151
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing

LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing

-
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
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

-
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 Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

AkzoNobel has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing 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 - AkzoNobel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AkzoNobel 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 AXIO Proficiency Testing

LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AKZINSHYDPOWWES1775047452
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AKZ1772649747
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AKZ1772583818

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
3.1