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

Comparison Overview

Prothena CorporationProthena Corporation
VS
Agilent TechnologiesAgilent Technologies
Prothena Corporation

Prothena Corporation

77 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Block C, Dublin, 2, D02 T804, IE

Last Update: 25/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.prothena.com
733/1000Moderate

Prothena is a late-stage clinical biotechnology company with expertise in protein dysregulation and a diverse pipeline of novel investigational therapies for neurodegenerative and rare peripheral amyloid diseases. We are committed to developing novel and transformati...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:167
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Agilent Technologies

Agilent Technologies

5301 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara, 95051, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.agilent.com
802/1000Good

Agilent customers are finding new ways to treat cancer, ensure food, water, air, and medicine quality and safety, discover new drug treatments, research infectious diseases, and create alternative energy solutions for a greener planet. From start to finish, we have them...

NAICS:541714
NAICS Definition:Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
Employees:17,508
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Prothena Corporation

Prothena Corporation

-
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
Agilent Technologies

Agilent Technologies

-
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 Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prothena Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Biotechnology Research Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Agilent Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Prothena Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prothena Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Agilent Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Agilent Technologies 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...
Prothena Corporation

Prothena Corporation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRO23508622
Agilent Technologies

Agilent Technologies

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-55867
SUMMARY

Graylog is a free and open log management platform. From 6.2.0 until 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2, the DELETE /users/{userId}/tokens/{idOrToken} endpoint implemented by UsersResource.revokeToken() in graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/users/UsersResource.java checks USERS_TOKENREMOVE permission against the attacker-controlled userId path parameter before resolving the token selected by idOrToken. An authenticated user can provide an authorized userId while accessTokenService.loadById() or accessTokenService.load() resolves a token belonging to another user, including a service account or administrator, after which accessTokenService.destroy() deletes that token without checking AccessToken.getUserName(). The issue does not expose token contents, but unauthorized deletion causes integrity impact and can disrupt access-token-based integrations. This issue is fixed in versions 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55860
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb does not gate clear-text password authentication plugins on transport encryption because the AuthenticationPlugin interface has no capability for a plugin to require a secure connection. A hostile or man-in-the-middle MariaDB server can send an AuthSwitchRequest naming mysql_clear_password or dialog (PAM) over a plain-TCP unencrypted connection, and AuthenticationFlow permits ClearPasswordPluginFlow or PamPluginFlow to return the user's password as cleartext bytes on the wire. The disclosed credentials can subsequently be used to authenticate directly to the database server. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55859
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb encodes and decodes all character data under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. A server can announce a mid-session change to character_set_client through the OK-packet session-state-tracking mechanism, including through SET NAMES executed by a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile or man-in-the-middle server. If the new character set is not UTF-8, the driver continues to exchange UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under a different encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value raises R2dbcNonTransientResourceException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55858
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, the connector encodes and decodes protocol text and performs client-side escaping under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. The server can report a mid-session change to character_set_client through OK-packet session-state tracking, including a change caused by SET NAMES, a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile server. If character_set_client changes to a non-UTF-8 value, the driver continues to read and write UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under another encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value causes SQLException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55857
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, PAM dialog authentication can be coerced into transmitting the account password over an insecure connection. The mysql_clear_password plugin is gated behind a secure transport, but the sibling PAM handler SendPamAuthPacketFactory, named dialog by the server, does not declare that requirement and inherits the default secure-required value false; older branches implement the same affected behavior in SendPamAuthPacket. A hostile or man-in-the-middle server can send an Authentication Switch Request for dialog over plain TCP, causing the driver to return the user's password in cleartext when sslMode=DISABLE and restrictedAuth=null, which is the default configuration. Properly verified TLS and local Unix sockets are not exposed to this transport vector. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2