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

Comparison Overview

Pharmaceutical CommercePharmaceutical Commerce
VS
Novo NordiskNovo Nordisk
Pharmaceutical Commerce

Pharmaceutical Commerce

485 Route 1 South, Iselin, 08330, US

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Pharmaceutical Commerce is dedicated to the commercial operations of the North American pharmaceutical industry. Four times a year, its 16,000 executive readers get the latest information and analysis commercial operations, marketing/sales best practices, supply chain m...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:32
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Novo Alle, Bagsværd, DK, 2880

Last Update: 20/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.novonordisk.com
720/1000Moderate

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
3
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pharmaceutical Commerce

Pharmaceutical Commerce

-
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 Pharmaceutical Commerce in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Novo Nordisk has 183.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Pharmaceutical Commerce (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pharmaceutical Commerce cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
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...
Pharmaceutical Commerce

Pharmaceutical Commerce

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
NOV1781951217
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV1781195765
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ORA1780418023

FAQ

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