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

Comparison Overview

MICHELIN MiningMICHELIN Mining
VS
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel IndiaArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India
MICHELIN Mining

MICHELIN Mining

1 Parkway S, Greenville, 29615, US

Last Update: 26/02/2026

View Profile

Michelin offers a complete portfolio of products, support, services and solutions designed to bring more value to you — our customers — to help you operate safer, smarter and more sustainably. We call it Michelin Better Mining. Our industry-leading tire technology is u...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

27 km, Surat-Hazira Road , Surat, 394270, IN

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.amns.in
783/1000Fair

AM/NS India is a joint venture between the world's leading steel companies, ArcelorMittal and Nippon Steel. Established in December 2019, post-acquisition of Essar Steel, we are an integrated flat steel manufacturer - from iron ore to ready-to-market products. With over...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:11,401
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MICHELIN Mining

MICHELIN Mining

-
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
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

-
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 Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MICHELIN Mining in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MICHELIN Mining (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MICHELIN Mining cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India 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...
MICHELIN Mining

MICHELIN Mining

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8