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

Comparison Overview

LGC Mikromol™LGC Mikromol™
VS
Teva PharmaceuticalsTeva Pharmaceuticals
LGC Mikromol™

LGC Mikromol™

Louis-Pasteur-Straße 30, Luckenwalde, 14943, DE

Last Update: 09/12/2025

View Profile
754/1000Fair

At Mikromol we combine an incomparable depth of pharmaceutical knowledge with 25 years of manufacturing experience and scientific acumen to ensure our portfolio of over 5,000 Impurity, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) and Excipient reference standards is of the hi...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Teva Pharmaceuticals

Teva Pharmaceuticals

124 Dvora hanevi'a, Tel-Aviv, IL, 6944020

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.tevapharm.com
805/1000Good

Teva Pharmaceuticals is a leading innovative biopharmaceutical company, enabled by a world-class generics business. For over 120 years, Teva’s commitment has never wavered. From innovating in the fields of neuroscience and immunology to providing complex generic medicin...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:29,951
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LGC Mikromol™

LGC Mikromol™

-
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
Teva Pharmaceuticals

Teva Pharmaceuticals

-
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 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LGC Mikromol™ in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Teva Pharmaceuticals in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - LGC Mikromol™ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LGC Mikromol™ 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 - Teva Pharmaceuticals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Teva Pharmaceuticals 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 Mikromol™

LGC Mikromol™

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Teva Pharmaceuticals

Teva Pharmaceuticals

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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