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

Comparison Overview

Lonza Testing SolutionsLonza Testing Solutions
VS
Charles River LaboratoriesCharles River Laboratories
Lonza Testing Solutions

Lonza Testing Solutions

Walkersville, 21793, US

Last Update: 21/02/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Lonza is the trusted QC Testing Solutions provider, delivering a portfolio of endotoxin detection products, software and services.

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Charles River Laboratories

Charles River Laboratories

251 Ballardvale Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts, US, 01887

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://criver.com
785/1000Fair

At Charles River, we are guided by our strong purpose—to create healthier lives—which centers around the patients who rely on the therapeutics we help to develop, the animals in our care, to our planet, and to the passionate and skilled people who are at the heart of ou...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:14,867
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lonza Testing Solutions

Lonza Testing Solutions

-
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
Charles River Laboratories

Charles River Laboratories

-
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 Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lonza Testing Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Charles River Laboratories in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lonza Testing Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lonza Testing Solutions 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 - Charles River Laboratories (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Charles River Laboratories 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...
Lonza Testing Solutions

Lonza Testing Solutions

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Charles River Laboratories

Charles River Laboratories

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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: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-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8