Comparison Overview

Samsung Semiconductor

VS

Texas Instruments

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

Texas Instruments

12500 T I Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75243, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 800 and 849

We are a global semiconductor company that designs, manufactures and sells analog and embedded processing chips for markets such as industrial, automotive, personal electronics, enterprise systems and communications equipment. At our core, we have a passion to create a better world by making electronics more affordable through semiconductors. This passion is alive today as each generation of innovation builds upon the last to make our technology more reliable, more affordable and lower power, making it possible for semiconductors to go into electronics everywhere. Learn more at TI.com.

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 31,479
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/texas-instruments.jpeg
Texas Instruments
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
Texas Instruments
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)

No incidents recorded for Texas Instruments in 2025.

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

Samsung Semiconductor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Texas Instruments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Instruments 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/texas-instruments.jpeg
Texas Instruments
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Samsung Semiconductor company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Texas Instruments company has not reported any.

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

Neither Texas Instruments company nor Samsung Semiconductor company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

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

Samsung Semiconductor company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Texas Instruments company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Texas Instruments company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Samsung Semiconductor company.

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

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Samsung Semiconductor nor Texas Instruments 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