Comparison Overview

Lucidant Polymers

VS

Brenntag

Lucidant Polymers

1230 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, US
Last Update: 2025-03-04 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900

Strong

Lucidant Polymers provides high performance, custom polymer matrices for biological separations and nanolayer active coatings for molecular surface assays.

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Brenntag

Messeallee 11, None, Essen , North Rhine-Westphalia , DE, 45131
Last Update: 2025-07-28 (UTC)

We're the global market leader in full-line range of chemical & ingredient products and value-added services. Our more than 17,500 employees provide tailor-made application, marketing and supply chain solutions. Our full-line portfolio comprises specialty and industrial chemicals and ingredients of a world-class supplier base. Building on our long-standing experience, unmatched global reach and local excellence, we work closely alongside our partners to make their business more successful. We operate a unique global network with about 600 locations in 72 countries.

NAICS: 325
NAICS Definition: Chemical Manufacturing
Employees: 11,764
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lucidant-polymers.jpeg
Lucidant Polymers
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brenntag.jpeg
Brenntag
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Lucidant Polymers
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Brenntag
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lucidant Polymers in 2025.

Incidents vs Chemical Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brenntag in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Lucidant Polymers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lucidant Polymers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Brenntag (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brenntag cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lucidant-polymers.jpeg
Lucidant Polymers
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brenntag.jpeg
Brenntag
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2021
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access (Hacking)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Both Lucidant Polymers company and Brenntag company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Brenntag company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Lucidant Polymers company has not reported any.

In the current year, Brenntag company and Lucidant Polymers company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Brenntag company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Lucidant Polymers company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Brenntag company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Lucidant Polymers company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Brenntag company nor Lucidant Polymers company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lucidant Polymers company nor Brenntag company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Brenntag company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Lucidant Polymers company.

Brenntag company employs more people globally than Lucidant Polymers company, reflecting its scale as a Chemical Manufacturing.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Better Auth is an authentication and authorization library for TypeScript. In versions prior to 1.3.26, unauthenticated attackers can create or modify API keys for any user by passing that user's id in the request body to the `api/auth/api-key/create` route. `session?.user ?? (authRequired ? null : { id: ctx.body.userId })`. When no session exists but `userId` is present in the request body, `authRequired` becomes false and the user object is set to the attacker-controlled ID. Server-only field validation only executes when `authRequired` is true (lines 280-295), allowing attackers to set privileged fields. No additional authentication occurs before the database operation, so the malicious payload is accepted. The same pattern exists in the update endpoint. This is a critical authentication bypass enabling full an unauthenticated attacker can generate an API key for any user and immediately gain complete authenticated access. This allows the attacker to perform any action as the victim user using the api key, potentially compromise the user data and the application depending on the victim's privileges. Version 1.3.26 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.3
Severity: 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
Description

Allstar is a GitHub App to set and enforce security policies. In versions prior to 4.5, a vulnerability in Allstarโ€™s Reviewbot component caused inbound webhook requests to be validated against a hard-coded, shared secret. The value used for the secret token was compiled into the Allstar binary and could not be configured at runtime. In practice, this meant that every deployment using Reviewbot would validate requests with the same secret unless the operator modified source code and rebuilt the component - an expectation that is not documented and is easy to miss. All Allstar releases prior to v4.5 that include the Reviewbot code path are affected. Deployments on v4.5 and later are not affected. Those who have not enabled or exposed the Reviewbot endpoint are not exposed to this issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 4.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
Description

Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities with Calendar events in Liferay Portal 7.4.3.35 through 7.4.3.111, and Liferay DXP 2023.Q4.0 through 2023.Q4.5, 2023.Q3.1 through 2023.Q3.7, 7.4 update 35 through update 92, and 7.3 update 25 through update 36 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a userโ€™s (1) First Name, (2) Middle Name or (3) Last Name text field.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/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
Description

Python Social Auth is a social authentication/registration mechanism. In versions prior to 5.6.0, upon authentication, the user could be associated by e-mail even if the `associate_by_email` pipeline was not included. This could lead to account compromise when a third-party authentication service does not validate provided e-mail addresses or doesn't require unique e-mail addresses. Version 5.6.0 contains a patch. As a workaround, review the authentication service policy on e-mail addresses; many will not allow exploiting this vulnerability.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
Description

Confidential Containers's Trustee project contains tools and components for attesting confidential guests and providing secrets to them. In versions prior to 0.15.0, the attestation-policy endpoint didn't check if the kbs-client submitting the request was actually authenticated (had the right key). This allowed any kbs-client to actually change the attestation policy. Version 0.15.0 fixes the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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