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

Comparison Overview

LGC LoGiCalLGC LoGiCal
VS
DowDow
LGC LoGiCal

LGC LoGiCal

Queens Road, Teddington, TW11 0LY, GB

Last Update: 11/12/2025

View Profile

LGC Standards LoGiCal provides laboratories with a conveniently packaged wide range of reference materials, focused on forensic and clinical toxicology. Since being launched 2012, the portfolio has continually grown and now covers drugs, metabolites and stable isotope...

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

Dow

2211 H.H. Dow Way, Midland, 48674, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.dow.com
808/1000Good

Dow (NYSE: DOW) is one of the world’s leading materials science companies, serving customers in high-growth markets such as packaging, infrastructure, mobility and consumer applications. Our global breadth, asset integration and scale, customer-focused innovation and le...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:45,608
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LGC LoGiCal

LGC LoGiCal

-
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
Dow

Dow

-
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 LoGiCal in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dow in 2026.

Incidents

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

LGC LoGiCal 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 - Dow (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dow 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 LoGiCal

LGC LoGiCal

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Dow

Dow

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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