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

Comparison Overview

NXP SemiconductorsNXP Semiconductors
VS
BroadcomBroadcom
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

High Tech Campus 60, Eindhoven, 5656 AG, NL

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nxp.com
757/1000Fair

We anticipate tomorrow’s needs—navigating a changing world by bringing together technology's brightest minds to build game-changing solutions that propel us forward. NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NASDAQ: NXPI) is the trusted partner for innovative solutions in the automotive...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:22,465
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3
Broadcom

Broadcom

3401 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, California, US, 94304

Last Update: 21/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.broadcom.com
762/1000Fair

Broadcom provides semiconductors and infrastructure software for global organizations’ complex, mission-critical needs. We combine long-term R&D investment with superb execution to deliver the best technology, at scale. Through focus and expertise, Broadcom sets the st...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:55,707
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

-
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
Broadcom

Broadcom

-
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 Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

NXP Semiconductors has 32.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Broadcom has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - NXP Semiconductors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NXP Semiconductors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Broadcom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NPMGITNXPMIC1779193496
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
NXPTHASTM1775572928
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701
Broadcom

Broadcom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
BRO1775111316
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BROBECTHEORAABB1773750615
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BRO3105131112625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2