Comparison Overview

MCC Label

VS

Graphic Packaging International

MCC Label

6111 N River Rd, None, Rosemont, Illinois, US, 60018
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 700 and 749

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 touch of local service. Our experienced team is here to assist you with an array of label solutions and diverse market expertise. By combining a collaborative approach and a wide range of value-added services, MCC aims to be your label partner from concept to commercialization. Backed by over a century of printing experience, MCC is focused on the future by developing consumer-driven innovations and sustainable packaging solutions.

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

1500 Riveredge Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30328
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

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 footprint of consumer packaging. Graphic Packaging operates a global network of design and manufacturing facilities serving the world's most widely recognized brands in food, beverage, foodservice, household, and other consumer products.

NAICS: 326112
NAICS Definition: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees: 11,115
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mcclabel.jpeg
MCC Label
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/graphic-packaging-international.jpeg
Graphic Packaging International
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
MCC Label
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Graphic Packaging International
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for MCC Label in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Graphic Packaging International in 2025.

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

MCC Label cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Graphic Packaging International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mcclabel.jpeg
MCC Label
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/graphic-packaging-international.jpeg
Graphic Packaging International
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Graphic Packaging International company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to MCC Label company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

MCC Label company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Graphic Packaging International company.

In the current year, Graphic Packaging International company and MCC Label company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Graphic Packaging International company nor MCC Label company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

MCC Label company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Graphic Packaging International company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Graphic Packaging International company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while MCC Label company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MCC Label company nor Graphic Packaging International company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither MCC Label company nor Graphic Packaging International company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Graphic Packaging International company employs more people globally than MCC Label company, reflecting its scale as a Packaging and Containers Manufacturing.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MCC Label nor Graphic Packaging International holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for 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: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

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N