Comparison Overview
Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company

Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company
Franklin House, Cwmbran, undefined, NP44 3WY, GB
Last Update: 04/01/2026
Nanopharm was founded to address industry-wide challenges in converting drugs from concept into viable, effective and consistent nasal and orally inhaled drug products. The company has established itself as a leading provider of tailored analytical and formulation su...

Hikma Pharmaceuticals
1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR, GB
Last Update: 12/09/2026
For almost 50 years, we’ve been creating high-quality medicines and making them accessible to the people who need them. We are a trusted, reliable partner and dependable source of over 800* high-quality generic, specialty and branded pharmaceutical products that hospita...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company







Hikma Pharmaceuticals






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company in 2026.
Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Hikma Pharmaceuticals in 2026.
Incident History - Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Hikma Pharmaceuticals (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Hikma Pharmaceuticals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Nanopharm Ltd, an Aptar Pharma Company

Hikma Pharmaceuticals
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.