Comparison Overview

Magnetic Technologies, Ltd

VS

Fives Lund LLC

Magnetic Technologies, Ltd

31 Highland Drive, PUTNAM, CT, 06260-3010, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Since 1984 we have been designing and manufacturing high quality permanent magnet brakes, clutches and couplings. Over the years, we have developed systems of machining and inspection that insure quality and repeatability. We use Solid Works™ for designing and Master Cam™ for machining. Our production parts all run on CNC lathes and machining centers. We have optimized our machine shop and assembly area for the type of magnetic products that we have become known for. All our parts are serialized, tested and records are kept for traceability. Our high attention to detail on each and every order is what differentiates us from our competitors.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 5
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Fives Lund LLC

13536 Beacon Coal Mine Rd S, Seattle, Washington, 98178, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Fives Lund delivers engineering with a complete customer focus. From machine and system consultation and design through assembly, commissioning and ongoing support. Our strengths include mechanical and electrical engineering, robotics and controls integration with turnkey manufacturing services to composite processing, commercial aerospace, space launch, large movable structures, heavy industrial, bioscience and marine industries worldwide.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 59
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/magnetic-technologies-ltd.jpeg
Magnetic Technologies, Ltd
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fives-lund-llc.jpeg
Fives Lund LLC
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Magnetic Technologies, Ltd
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fives Lund LLC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Industrial Automation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Magnetic Technologies, Ltd in 2025.

Incidents vs Industrial Automation Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fives Lund LLC in 2025.

Incident History — Magnetic Technologies, Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Magnetic Technologies, Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Fives Lund LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fives Lund LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/magnetic-technologies-ltd.jpeg
Magnetic Technologies, Ltd
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fives-lund-llc.jpeg
Fives Lund LLC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Fives Lund LLC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Fives Lund LLC company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company.

In the current year, Fives Lund LLC company and Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fives Lund LLC company nor Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Fives Lund LLC company nor Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Fives Lund LLC company nor Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company nor Fives Lund LLC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company nor Fives Lund LLC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Fives Lund LLC company employs more people globally than Magnetic Technologies, Ltd company, reflecting its scale as a Industrial Automation.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Magnetic Technologies, Ltd nor Fives Lund LLC holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H