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

Comparison Overview

Quaker Windows & DoorsQuaker Windows & Doors
VS
Ambuja Cements LimitedAmbuja Cements Limited
Quaker Windows & Doors

Quaker Windows & Doors

504 U. S. Hwy. 63 South, P.O. Box 128, Freeburg, MO, US, 65035

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
724/1000Moderate

Quaker Window Products Company, Inc. has been a leader in the window and door industry since 1949. We're known nationwide for manufacturing top quality windows and doors at competitive prices, which has been our trademark business philosophy since the company began. Qua...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:489
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Ambuja Cements Limited

Ambuja Cements Limited

Elegant Business Park, Off Andheri Kurla Road,, Mumbai, 400059, IN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ambujacement.com
777/1000Fair

Ambuja Cements Ltd. is among the leading cement companies in India. It is a member of the Adani Group - the largest and fastest-growing portfolio of diversified sustainable businesses. Ambuja Cement is known for its hassle-free, home-building solutions. Its unique produ...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:12,091
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Quaker Windows & Doors

Quaker Windows & Doors

-
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
Ambuja Cements Limited

Ambuja Cements Limited

-
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 Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Quaker Windows & Doors in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ambuja Cements Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Quaker Windows & Doors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Quaker Windows & Doors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ambuja Cements Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ambuja Cements Limited 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...
Quaker Windows & Doors

Quaker Windows & Doors

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
QUA649072825
Ambuja Cements Limited

Ambuja Cements Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8