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

Comparison Overview

Rodan + FieldsRodan + Fields
VS
Philip Morris InternationalPhilip Morris International
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

60 Spear Street, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
782/1000Fair

We are Rodan + Fields, founded by Stanford-trained dermatologists with a mission to revolutionize skincare for women everywhere. Our products are dermatologist-developed and inspired by Women-Backed Science™, delivering real, visible results. We understand what works f...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:18,226
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Philip Morris International

Philip Morris International

Avenue de Rhodanie 50, Lausanne, CH, 1007

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pmi.com/
844/1000Good

Philip Morris International (PMI) is a leading international consumer goods company working to deliver a smoke-free future and evolving its portfolio for the long term to include products outside of the tobacco and nicotine sector. Since 2008, PMI has invested more than...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:65,038
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

-
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
Philip Morris International

Philip Morris International

-
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 Rodan + Fields in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Philip Morris International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Rodan + Fields (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rodan + Fields 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 - Philip Morris International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Philip Morris International 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...
Rodan + Fields

Rodan + Fields

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Philip Morris International

Philip Morris International

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-91201
SUMMARY

DocsGPT through 0.20.0 posts OAuth connector session tokens to a wildcard target origin in the callback-status endpoint without validating sender origin. Attackers can obtain session tokens and provider account emails by acting as window.opener during OAuth authorization, then use tokens to disconnect victims' cloud storage connectors.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-91200
SUMMARY

DevSpace through 6.3.21 fails to reject parent-directory segments in tar entry names from the in-pod sync stream. Attackers operating a malicious container can stream tar entries with traversal sequences to write arbitrary files on the developer workstation, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
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: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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-2026-91199
SUMMARY

Refly through 1.1.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the POST /v1/misc/scrape endpoint that fetches caller-supplied URLs without validating the scheme, host, or resolved address. Authenticated attackers can make the backend issue requests to loopback, private, and link-local addresses including cloud metadata services to read page titles and descriptions of internal resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
3.1
CVE-2026-91198
SUMMARY

GrowthBook through 5.0.1 returns unredacted fact table definitions including raw warehouse SQL in payloads served by unauthenticated public report and experiment endpoints. Attackers with knowledge of a publicly shared report or experiment identifier can read internal data warehouse query text, schema, table names, filter values and datasource identifiers.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-91197
SUMMARY

Flowable flowable-engine through 8.0.0 contains an XML external entity injection vulnerability in ProcessDiagramLayoutFactory.parseXml() that fails to disable external entity resolution when parsing deployed BPMN resources. Attackers with process deployment privileges can embed DOCTYPE declarations with external entities in BPMN files to read arbitrary local files or trigger requests to internal network endpoints when diagram layout is computed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8