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

Comparison Overview

Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.
VS
COTOCOTO
Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.

Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.

Level 15,, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, AU

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd. is the wholly owned Australian subsidiary of Mitsui & Co., one of the world's most diversified trading, investment and services enterprises. Mitsui maintains a global network of 128 offices in 63 countries and has global expertise in direc...

NAICS:522
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:73
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
COTO

COTO

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, AR

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
800/1000Good

¿Sabés lo importante que es para nosotros que formes parte de COTO? Te proponemos superarte con proyectos arquitectónicos increíbles como, por ejemplo, la construcción de un mega centro comercial, o profesionalizarte en Comercio Exterior interactuando con los mercados ...

NAICS:522293
NAICS Definition:International Trade Financing
Employees:18,260
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.

Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.

-
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
COTO

COTO

-
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 International Trade and Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs International Trade and Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for COTO in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - COTO (X = Date, Y = Severity)

COTO 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...
Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.

Mitsui & Co. (Australia) Ltd.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
COTO

COTO

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66591
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in David Lingren Media LIbrary Assistant allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Media LIbrary Assistant: from n/a through 3.39.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-66589
SUMMARY

Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kings Plugins B2BKing allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects B2BKing: from n/a through 5.2.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-27365
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Series allows Stored XSS. This issue affects PublishPress Series: from n/a through 2.17.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-73974
SUMMARY

linuxfabrik-lib provides Python modules for database access, caching, shell execution, and API integrations, and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins uses its shared testing helper across check plugins. Prior to linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0, lib.lftest.test() treated the first or second element of a --test CSV argument as a filesystem path and returned the file contents as simulated standard output or standard error without path confinement. The hidden but production-accessible --test argument was accepted by sudo-authorized plugins, so an attacker controlling the nagios or icinga account could use check-plugins/deb-updates/deb-updates with its default QUERY=1 to disclose every line of a root-readable file. Approximately 22 other plugins exposed filtered content or a root file existence and readability oracle through the same helper, while check-plugins/network-bonding/network-bonding and check-plugins/openstack-swift-stat/openstack-swift-stat had direct read paths that bypassed the helper. The library fix confines fixture reads to the invoking plugin's unit-test directory and refuses unsafe anchors, and the plugin fix routes the two bypasses through that helper. These issues are fixed in linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-73973
SUMMARY

Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins provides monitoring plugins for Icinga, Nagios, and related systems. Prior to version 7.0.0, check-plugins/logfile/logfile accepted a free-form --filename path and opened it as root when invoked through the shipped nagios or icinga sudoers allowlist, without confining the resolved path to /var/log. An attacker who controls the monitoring account can select a root-readable file such as /etc/shadow and use --warning-regex . while leaving SUPPRESS_OUTPUT false, causing each nonempty line to be collected in warn_matches and returned through lib.base.oao(). The vulnerable flow passes the expanded scan_path directly to open(), and neither real-path containment nor an allowlist protects the sink. The same fix also confines mysql-logfile and openvpn-client-list paths, allows only documented log roots, and resolves symlinks and parent-directory traversal before checking containment. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8