Comparison Overview

Samsung Semiconductor

VS

AMD

Samsung Semiconductor

None
Last Update: 2025-11-25

Established in 1974 as a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, we’re proud to be recognized as one of the leading chip manufacturers in the world. Using our knowledge in semiconductor technology, our ambition is to spark the imagination of device manufacturers with top-of-the-line building blocks and, through that, enrich the lives of people around the world with transformative solutions.

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 9,594
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

AMD

2485 Augustine Drive, Santa Clara, California, US, 95054
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

We care deeply about transforming lives with AMD technology to enrich our industry, our communities, and the world. Our mission is to build great products that accelerate next-generation computing experiences – the building blocks for the data center, artificial intelligence, PCs, gaming and embedded. Underpinning our mission is the AMD culture. We push the limits of innovation to solve the world’s most important challenges. We strive for execution excellence while being direct, humble, collaborative, and inclusive of diverse perspectives. AMD together we advance_

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 49,754
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/samsungsemiconductor.jpeg
Samsung Semiconductor
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amd.jpeg
AMD
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Samsung Semiconductor
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AMD
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Samsung Semiconductor has 61.29% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

AMD has 222.58% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Samsung Semiconductor (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung Semiconductor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — AMD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AMD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/samsungsemiconductor.jpeg
Samsung Semiconductor
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Malicious Image Files, Closed-Source Library Exploitation (libimagecodec.quram.so)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amd.jpeg
AMD
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Local (Admin-Privileged Hypervisor), Memory Manipulation
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Local, Privilege Escalation (if attacker gains sufficient privileges)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

AMD company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Samsung Semiconductor company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

AMD company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Samsung Semiconductor company.

In the current year, AMD company has reported more cyber incidents than Samsung Semiconductor company.

AMD company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Samsung Semiconductor company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither AMD company nor Samsung Semiconductor company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither AMD company nor Samsung Semiconductor company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Both Samsung Semiconductor company and AMD company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor company nor AMD company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

AMD company employs more people globally than Samsung Semiconductor company, reflecting its scale as a Semiconductor Manufacturing.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor AMD holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H