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

Comparison Overview

PDI, Inc.PDI, Inc.
VS
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
PDI, Inc.

PDI, Inc.

1000 Floral Vale BLVD, Yardley, PA, 19067, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ph-pdi.com/
756/1000Fair

PDI is a leading healthcare commercialization company providing superior insight-driven, integrated multi-channel message delivery for established and emerging healthcare companies. The company is dedicated to: -Providing outsourced sales and marketing expertise -Creat...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:564
Subsidiaries:87
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

304, Atlanta Arcade Marol Church Road, Mumbai, 400059, IN

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

A vertically integrated, Global Pharmaceutical Company. Established in 1989, we are engaged in developing, manufacturing, and marketing a wide range of formulations across several major therapeutic areas including anti-infectives, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermato...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:11,821
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PDI, Inc.

PDI, 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
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

-
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 PDI, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 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...
PDI, Inc.

PDI, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2