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

Comparison Overview

OM1, Inc.OM1, Inc.
VS
Novo NordiskNovo Nordisk
OM1, Inc.

OM1, Inc.

31 Saint James Ave, Suite 1125, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 02116

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.om1.com
676/1000Weak

OM1 is an insights-driven technology and data company specializing in Personalized Medicine, Evidence Generation, and RWE Research powered by next-Gen A.I. platforms, regulatory-grade deep longitudinal data, and globally recognized thought leadership. Our unprecedent...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:132
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Novo Alle, Bagsværd, DK, 2880

Last Update: 12/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.novonordisk.com
778/1000Fair

We’re not your typical healthcare company. In a modern world of quick fixes, we focus on solutions to defeat serious chronic disease and create long-term health. Our unordinary mindset is at the heart of everything we do. We seek out new ideas and put people first as we...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:65,152
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OM1, Inc.

OM1, 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
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

-
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 OM1, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - OM1, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OM1, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Novo Nordisk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Novo Nordisk 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...
OM1, Inc.

OM1, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OM10892908092425
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV1781195765
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ORA1780418023
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV1781273379

FAQ

Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between OM1, Inc. company and Novo Nordisk company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between OM1, Inc. and Novo Nordisk, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between OM1, Inc. and Novo Nordisk, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - OM1, Inc. or Novo Nordisk ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - OM1, Inc. or Novo Nordisk ?
Between OM1, Inc. and Novo Nordisk, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between OM1, Inc. and Novo Nordisk, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8