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
Tetra PakTetra Pak
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
Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak

70 Avenue Général-Guisan, CH-1009 PULLY/LAUSANNE, Case Postale 446, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tetrapak.com
789/1000Fair

We’re here to make food safe and available. It’s why we provide advanced food production systems, from product creation and recipe testing to processing, filling, packaging, logistics, services and beyond. We support almost every food and beverage category with tailored...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:25,859
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak

-
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 Tetra Pak 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 - Tetra Pak (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tetra Pak 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...
MCC Label

MCC Label

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCC213531122
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCC244080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCC426072525
Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA