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

Comparison Overview

Lilly Deutschland GmbHLilly Deutschland GmbH
VS
Intas PharmaceuticalsIntas Pharmaceuticals
Lilly Deutschland GmbH

Lilly Deutschland GmbH

Werner-Reimers-Str. 2-4, Bad Homburg, 61352, DE

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.lilly.com/de
757/1000Fair

Eli Lilly and Company (kurz: Lilly) ist ein international tätiges forschendes Arzneimittelunternehmen mit rund 47.000 Mitarbeitenden weltweit, davon ca. 1.150 in Deutschland (Stand Dezember 2024). Hauptsitz von Lilly ist Indianapolis im US-Bundesstaat Indiana. Seit nah...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Intas Pharmaceuticals

Intas Pharmaceuticals

Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway, Near Sola Bridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://intaspharma.com
795/1000Fair

Intas is one of the leading multinational pharmaceutical formulation development, manufacturing, and marketing organization in the world. It has been growing at 19% CAGR and crossed the $2.5 billion mark in the past financial year. The company has set up a network of su...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:18,773
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lilly Deutschland GmbH

Lilly Deutschland GmbH

-
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
Intas Pharmaceuticals

Intas 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 Lilly Deutschland GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intas Pharmaceuticals in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lilly Deutschland GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lilly Deutschland GmbH 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 - Intas Pharmaceuticals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intas 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...
Lilly Deutschland GmbH

Lilly Deutschland GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Intas Pharmaceuticals

Intas Pharmaceuticals

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71983
SUMMARY

MSI Radix AXE6600 router firmware version v781521 contains a command injection vulnerability in the wps.cgi interface that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting malicious input through the pin2g, pin5g, or pin6g parameters. Attackers can exploit these unsanitized parameters to execute arbitrary commands on the affected device and obtain root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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
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: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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71502
SUMMARY

CTI-Transmute contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability caused by insufficient neutralization of Vue template expression delimiters in server-rendered user-controlled data. An unauthenticated attacker can create a public conversion whose name or description contains a malicious Vue expression using the application's configured [[ ... ]] delimiters. User profile names may provide an additional injection vector. Although Jinja HTML escaping is applied, the resulting value is subsequently included in a DOM region compiled by Vue. Vue interprets the attacker-controlled value as a template expression rather than ordinary text. By accessing the JavaScript Function constructor from within the expression, an attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the security context of the CTI-Transmute origin. The application's nonce-based Content Security Policy does not prevent exploitation because the Vue runtime compiler requires the unsafe-eval policy exception. The malicious payload is stored by the application and executed whenever another user opens an affected page, such as the public conversion detail page. The victim may be a normal user or an administrator. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to: * Access data available to the victim through the application. * Extract API keys, tokens, or other sensitive information exposed to the page. * Perform authenticated actions using the victim's session. * Modify conversions or other application data. * Escalate the impact by targeting an administrator. A demonstrated payload can use [].constructor.constructor(...) to obtain the JavaScript Function constructor and execute arbitrary code. The regression tests also show that a short first-stage payload could retrieve an uncapped conversion description and evaluate a larger second-stage payload. The patch addresses the vulnerability by registering a global Jinja finalize hook that inserts a zero-width Unicode word joiner inside every Vue delimiter found in server-rendered values. This prevents Vue from recognizing the values as template expressions while preserving their visible representation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-71958
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the quicksetup.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write overly long strings to the test4, ssid2, and username fields and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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
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: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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71957
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write an overly long string to the netAcc.addlist[].name field and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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
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: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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71956
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a command injection vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can inject arbitrary malicious commands into the netDig.ping.dst field, resulting in command execution with root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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
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: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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9