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

Comparison Overview

Octapharma Plasma, Inc.Octapharma Plasma, Inc.
VS
Bristol Myers SquibbBristol Myers Squibb
Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

10644 Westlake Drive, Charlotte, 28273, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
385/1000Critical

About Us: Octapharma Plasma, Inc. helps change lives through the incredible power of plasma donation. Backed by a global organization and supported by a dedicated team of more than 5,000 employees across the United States, we operate over 175 centers nationwide. Our mis...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:3,100
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrence Township, 08648, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.bms.com
806/1000Good

At Bristol Myers Squibb, we work every day to transform patients’ lives through science. That work inspires some of the most interesting, meaningful, and life-changing careers you’ll experience. Join us and pursue innovative ideas alongside some of the brightest minds i...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:38,258
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

-
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
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

-
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 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Octapharma Plasma, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bristol Myers Squibb in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Octapharma Plasma, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Octapharma Plasma, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Bristol Myers Squibb (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bristol Myers Squibb 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...
Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OCT2232822111325
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
OCT410080825
🔒 Incident : Breach
OCT0732507091625
Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BRI533080525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ERT18610523
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IQV125614222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8