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

Comparison Overview

MCC LabelMCC Label
VS
Graphic Packaging InternationalGraphic Packaging International
MCC Label

MCC Label

6111 N River Rd, None, Rosemont, Illinois, US, 60018

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.mcclabel.com
710/1000Moderate

As the global leader of premium labels, MCC helps brands stand out in competitive markets and inspire positive consumer experiences. With a network of 12,000+ teammates and facilities across 25+ countries and six continents, we combine global reach with the personalized...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:4,313
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

1500 Riveredge Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30328

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.graphicpkg.com
770/1000Fair

Graphic Packaging Holding Company (NYSE: GPK), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, designs and produces consumer packaging, made primarily from renewable or recycled materials. An industry leader in innovation, the Company is committed to reducing the environmental footp...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:11,524
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MCC Label

MCC Label

-
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
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

-
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 Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MCC Label in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Graphic Packaging International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MCC Label (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MCC Label cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Graphic Packaging International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Graphic Packaging International 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...
MCC Label

MCC Label

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCC213531122
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCC244080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCC426072525
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GRA406072625

FAQ

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