Comparison Overview

Metal Marker Manufacturing

VS

MR Label Company

Metal Marker Manufacturing

6225 Lear Nagle Road, North Ridgeville, OH, 44039, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.metalmarkermfg.com

WHAT WE DO: Metal Marker Mfg provides award-winning custom metal identification tags, nameplates, decals, placards, Metalphoto®, marking dies and stamps, along with engraving services for identification of your assets, components, equipment, tools, vehicles, etc. Our metal tags, placards and nameplates are used for a wide variety of applications including aerospace, industrial, military and commercial uses, and can be serialized for a wide range of identification purposes such as asset identification tags. PRODUCTS OFFERED: * Metal Identification Tags * Metal ID Tags * Embossed Tags * Stamped Tags * Nameplates * Labels * Placards * Decals * MetalPhoto(R) * Engraving * Steel Stamps * Marking Dies * and more EXPERIENCE: Since 1923 we have been providing custom identification products including metal tags and labels with EASY ordering and FAST delivery! QUALITY: We are ISO 9001+AS9100 Certified which means you’re assured to receive the highest quality metal identification products. FREE QUOTE: Call 800-428-0095 for your free quote.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

MR Label Company

5018 Gray Road, Cincinnati, 45232, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mrlabelco.com

Founded in 1976, MR Label is a family-owned business which has grown from a one-room office into our current facility with over 19,000 square feet. MR Label specializes in producing custom, made-to-order, pressure sensitive labels, decals and tags. We have flexographic, screen, digital, and variable printing capabilities. We also offer a full in-house, pre-press department with complete Macintosh desktop publishing, image-setting, and plate-making services.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 13
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/metal-marker-mfg.jpeg
Metal Marker Manufacturing
—
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/mr-label-company.jpeg
MR Label Company
—
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
Metal Marker Manufacturing
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MR Label Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metal Marker Manufacturing in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MR Label Company in 2025.

Incident History — Metal Marker Manufacturing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metal Marker Manufacturing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

MR Label Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metal-marker-mfg.jpeg
Metal Marker Manufacturing
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mr-label-company.jpeg
MR Label Company
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Metal Marker Manufacturing company and MR Label Company company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, MR Label Company company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Metal Marker Manufacturing company.

In the current year, MR Label Company company and Metal Marker Manufacturing company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither MR Label Company company nor Metal Marker Manufacturing company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither MR Label Company company nor Metal Marker Manufacturing company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither MR Label Company company nor Metal Marker Manufacturing company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing company nor MR Label Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing company nor MR Label Company company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

MR Label Company company employs more people globally than Metal Marker Manufacturing company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Metal Marker Manufacturing nor MR Label Company 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.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References
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)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
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)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References