Comparison Overview

Metalloinvest

VS

Glencore

Metalloinvest

28, Rublevskoye shosse, Moscow, Russia, 121609, Moscow, 121609, RU
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Metalloinvest is a leading global iron ore and HBI producer and supplier and one of the regional steel producers. Metalloinvest extracts and exploits iron ore fr om the second largest measured iron ore reserve base in the world with approximately 14.6 billion tonnes of proven and probable reserves on a JORC equivalent basis and about 150 years of reserve life. In 2012, according to CRU, the company was: - the leading producer of merchant HBI in the world - 40% share of the global market, - the third largest producer of pellets in the world, - the fifth largest commercial iron ore producer in the world. Metalloinvest is a global player in the production of iron ore products, processing the majority of its primary iron ore concentrate production into value-added products, such as iron ore pellets and HBI/DRI.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition: Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees: 546
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Glencore

Baarermattstrasse 3, Baar, ZG, 6340, CH
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 800 and 849

Glencore is one of the world’s largest global diversified natural resource companies and a major producer and marketer of more than 60 commodities that advance everyday life. Through a network of assets, customers and suppliers that spans the globe, we produce, process, recycle, source, market and distribute the commodities that support decarbonisation while meeting the energy needs of today.

NAICS: 212
NAICS Definition: Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees: 17,483
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metalloinvest.jpeg
Metalloinvest
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/glencore.jpeg
Glencore
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
Metalloinvest
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Glencore
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mining Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metalloinvest in 2026.

Incidents vs Mining Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Glencore in 2026.

Incident History — Metalloinvest (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metalloinvest cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Glencore (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Glencore cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metalloinvest.jpeg
Metalloinvest
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/glencore.jpeg
Glencore
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Glencore company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Metalloinvest company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Glencore company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Metalloinvest company.

In the current year, Glencore company and Metalloinvest company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Glencore company nor Metalloinvest company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Glencore company nor Metalloinvest company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Glencore company nor Metalloinvest company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Metalloinvest company nor Glencore company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Glencore company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Metalloinvest company.

Glencore company employs more people globally than Metalloinvest company, reflecting its scale as a Mining.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Metalloinvest nor Glencore holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N