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

Comparison Overview

Silgan Holdings Inc.Silgan Holdings Inc.
VS
Graphic Packaging InternationalGraphic Packaging International
Silgan Holdings Inc.

Silgan Holdings Inc.

4 Landmark Sq, Stamford, 06901, US

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
735/1000Moderate

Silgan is a leading global sustainable packaging provider for consumer goods products to many of the world's best known consumer products companies. We partner with our customers to enable them to bring their essential products to the world in the most efficient, sustai...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:81
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

1500 Riveredge Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30328

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.graphicpkg.com
770/1000Fair

Graphic Packaging Holding Company (NYSE: GPK), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, designs and produces consumer packaging, made primarily from renewable or recycled materials. An industry leader in innovation, the Company is committed to reducing the environmental footp...

NAICS:326112
NAICS Definition:Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
Employees:11,524
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Silgan Holdings Inc.

Silgan Holdings 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
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging 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 Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Silgan Holdings Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Packaging and Containers Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Graphic Packaging International in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Silgan Holdings Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Silgan Holdings Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Graphic Packaging International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Graphic Packaging International 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...
Silgan Holdings Inc.

Silgan Holdings Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SIL817072825
Graphic Packaging International

Graphic Packaging International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GRA406072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA