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

Comparison Overview

PT Merdeka Copper Gold TbkPT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk
VS
Tata SteelTata Steel
PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk

PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk

Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav 52-53, Jakarta, 12190, ID

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

To be an industry leading producer of gold, silver, copper and other minerals in Indonesia. Merdeka Copper Gold was founded in 2012 as a holding company with five operating subsidiaries that are engaged in the mining businesses, encompassing the exploration and future ...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:945
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Steel

Tata Steel

Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.tatasteel.com
802/1000Good

Tata Steel group is among the top global steel companies with an annual crude steel capacity of 34 million tonnes per annum. It is one of the world's most geographically-diversified steel producers, with operations and commercial presence across the world. The group (ex...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:56,276
Subsidiaries:76
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk

PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk

-
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
Tata Steel

Tata Steel

-
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 Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Steel in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk 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 - Tata Steel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Steel 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...
PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk

PT Merdeka Copper Gold Tbk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Steel

Tata Steel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2