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

Comparison Overview

MCC LabelMCC Label
VS
Avery DennisonAvery Dennison
MCC Label

MCC Label

6111 N River Rd, Rosemont, Illinois, 60018, US

Last Update: 07/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mcclabel.com
754/1000Fair

As the global leader of premium labels, MCC helps brands stand out in competitive markets and inspire positive consumer experiences. With a network of 12,000+ teammates and facilities across 25+ countries and six continents, we combine global reach with the personalized...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:4,179
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Avery Dennison

Avery Dennison

Mentor, Ohio, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://averydennison.com
776/1000Fair

We are a global materials science and digital identification solutions company with locations in over 50 countries, and approximately 35,000 employees worldwide. We are Making Possible™ products and solutions that provide branding and information solutions that optimiz...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:21,695
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MCC Label

MCC Label

-
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
Avery Dennison

Avery Dennison

-
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 Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MCC Label in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Avery Dennison in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MCC Label (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MCC Label 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 - Avery Dennison (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avery Dennison 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...
MCC Label

MCC Label

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Avery Dennison

Avery Dennison

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8