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

Comparison Overview

Red BridgeRed Bridge
VS
Whirlpool CorporationWhirlpool Corporation
Red Bridge

Red Bridge

Ainsworth Street, Bolton, BL2 5PD, GB

Last Update: 24/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mativ.com
759/1000Fair

The Red Bridge manufacturing operation has been located in Bolton, United Kingdom, near Manchester, England since 1927. The facility manufactures and supplies both coated reinforced papers and coated textiles. Its key target markets include: commercial printing and bin...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:17
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool Corporation

2000 North M63, Benton Harbor, Michigan, US, 49022

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com
789/1000Fair

Life at home has been at the heart of our business for 110+ years - it is why we exist and why we are passionate about what we do. Beginning with our founders to the everyday actions of our people, our values have always kept us grounded -- Integrity, Respect, Inclusion...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:45,454
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Red Bridge

Red Bridge

-
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
Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Bridge in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Whirlpool Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Red Bridge (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Bridge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Whirlpool Corporation 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...
Red Bridge

Red Bridge

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool Corporation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
WHI204219222

FAQ

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