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
LindeLinde
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
Linde

Linde

43 Church Street West, Woking, GU21 6HT, GB

Last Update: 01/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.linde.com
834/1000Good

Linde is a leading global industrial gases and engineering company with 2025 sales of $34 billion. We live our mission of making our world more productive every day by providing high-quality solutions, technologies and services which are making our customers more succes...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:39,733
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Linde

Linde

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Linde in 2026.

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 - Linde (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Linde 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 AXIO Proficiency Testing

LGC AXIO Proficiency Testing

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Linde

Linde

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63175
SUMMARY

PlaywrightCapture stored capture-specific configuration and runtime data as mutable class-level variables rather than instance-level variables. Consequently, multiple Capture objects running within the same Python process could share state, including HTTP headers, cookies, browser storage, HTTP credentials, proxy configuration, user-agent settings, geolocation information, and captured request data. In a multi-user or concurrent deployment, information supplied during one capture could therefore persist and be reused by a subsequent or parallel capture. This could result in the disclosure of authentication cookies, credentials, browser storage, or captured request data belonging to another user. It could also cause requests to be performed with another capture's authentication context, headers, or proxy configuration, potentially enabling unauthorized access to remote resources or interference with other capture operations. The vulnerability is resolved by initializing all capture-specific settings and request data as instance variables in the Capture constructor, ensuring that state is isolated between capture operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
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:L/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-2026-62314
SUMMARY

Anubis is a Web AI Firewall Utility that challenges users' connections in order to protect upstream resources from scraper bots. From 1.22.0 until 1.26.0-pre1, lib/policy/checker.go PathChecker.Check() trusted the client-controlled X-Original-URI header before matching r.URL.Path, allowing an HTTP client to match default data/common/keep-internet-working.yaml ALLOW rules such as ^/\.well-known/.*$ and bypass the Anubis challenge. This issue is fixed in version 1.26.0-pre1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55652
SUMMARY

Wekan is open source kanban built with Meteor. Prior to 9.46, header-login with HEADER_LOGIN_TRUSTED_IPS uses getRequestIp() in server/lib/headerLoginAuth.js to trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For header before the real socket address, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to send HEADER_LOGIN_ID for any username and receive a meteor_login_token session, including for admin. This issue is fixed in version 9.46.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55576
SUMMARY

MaaAssistantArknights is a one-click tool for daily Arknights tasks. In the current dev-v2 workflow, .github/workflows/release-preparation.yml inlined attacker-controlled github.event.pull_request.title into a run: shell command during the pull_request opened, reopened, and ready_for_review events, so a non-draft fork PR whose title starts with Release v could execute shell commands on the ubuntu-latest runner during the generate-changelog job. This vulnerability is fixed by commit cafc3946059e6337d2089d4fec8b6885ba17c332.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55445
SUMMARY

Qinglong is a timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, and Typescript. Prior to 2.20.1, the init guard middleware in back/loaders/express.ts checks /api/user/init but not /open/user/init, while rewrite('/open/*', '/api/$1') rewrites the whitelisted /open/* path after JWT authentication and the guard have passed; an unauthenticated attacker can send PUT /open/user/init to reset administrator credentials on an initialized instance. This issue is fixed in 2.20.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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: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