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

Comparison Overview

SightProtect by EssilorLuxotticaSightProtect by EssilorLuxottica
VS
Baxter International Inc.Baxter International Inc.
SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica

SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica

5205 Hwy 169 North, Plymouth, MN, US, 55442

Last Update: 04/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sight-protect.com
760/1000Fair

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reports that workplace eye injuries cost an estimated $300 million a year in lost productivity, medical treatment and worker compensation. However, over 90% of all workplace eye injuries could be avoided by using ...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:71
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Baxter International Inc.

Baxter International Inc.

1 Baxter Pkwy, Deerfield, Illinois, US, 60015

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.baxter.com
704/1000Moderate

For nearly a century, we have delivered on our commitment to saving and sustaining the lives of patients, working alongside clinicians and providers around the world. We believe every person — regardless of who they are or where they are from — deserves a chance to live...

NAICS:3391
NAICS Definition:Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Employees:39,420
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica

SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica

-
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
Baxter International Inc.

Baxter International Inc.

-
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 Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baxter International Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Baxter International Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baxter International Inc. 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...
SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica

SightProtect by EssilorLuxottica

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Baxter International Inc.

Baxter International Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAX326072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAX012072925

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9