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

Comparison Overview

LGC StandardsLGC Standards
VS
AkzoNobelAkzoNobel
LGC Standards

LGC Standards

Queens Road, Teddington, undefined, TW11 0LY, GB

Last Update: 17/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lgcstandards.com
756/1000Fair

LGC Standards provides products and services to improve measurement and quality control within the laboratory, and is part of LGC, whose LGC Science & Technology Division acts as the UK National Measurement Institute for chemical and bioanalytical measurements. LGC ...

NAICS:325
NAICS Definition:Chemical Manufacturing
Employees:719
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: 05/09/2026

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 Standards

LGC Standards

-
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 Standards 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 Standards (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LGC Standards 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 Standards

LGC Standards

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AkzoNobel

AkzoNobel

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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