Comparison Overview

Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal)

VS

Unilux

Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal)

1832 S Research Loop, Tucson, Arizona, 85710, US
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

Mineral Seal Corporation engages in engineering, manufacture and distribution of high performance specialty gasket seal fabrics rope packing products for various applications: flexible graphite, braided compression mechanical packing, high temperature textiles, fiber glass and ceramic fiber cloth, tape and rope, other refractory and sealing materials which are mostly developed from natural minerals. We are dedicated to providing cost-effective solutions for all industrial or R&D applications.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Unilux

59 N 5th Street, Saddle Brook, NJ, 07663, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Unilux has provided the power to see crisp, clear detail at full production speed for the printing, converting, packaging, metals, paper and textile industries for over 53 years. Unilux stroboscopic inspection solutions range from portable strobes for inspection and troubleshooting anywhere on the line, to stationary units capable of inspecting surfaces up to 12m wide. Unilux products are well supported by a global network of sales and service representatives in 58 countries throughout the world, along with service centers in North America, Europe, Thailand, China and India.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 62
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/mineral-seal-corp.jpeg
Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal)
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/unilux-inc.jpeg
Unilux
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
Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Unilux
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) in 2025.

Incidents vs Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Unilux in 2025.

Incident History — Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Unilux cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mineral-seal-corp.jpeg
Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal)
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/unilux-inc.jpeg
Unilux
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Unilux company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Unilux company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company.

In the current year, Unilux company and Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Unilux company nor Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Unilux company nor Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Unilux company nor Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company nor Unilux company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company nor Unilux company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Unilux company employs more people globally than Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) company, reflecting its scale as a Mechanical Or Industrial Engineering.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mineral Seal Corporation (Minseal) nor Unilux holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H