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

Comparison Overview

SK hynix AmericaSK hynix America
VS
Lam ResearchLam Research
SK hynix America

SK hynix America

3101 N. 1st St, None, San Jose, CA, US, 95134

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

Semiconductors are essential to all IT products, and its performance often determines the performance of the final products. SK hynix is a global leader in producing semiconductor, such as DRAM, NAND Flash and CMOS Image Sensors. With these technology driven semiconduct...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:342
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lam Research

Lam Research

4650 Cushing Parkway, Fremont, 94538, US

Last Update: 27/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.lamresearch.com
840/1000Good

Lam Research Corp. (NASDAQ:LRCX) At Lam Research, we create equipment that drives technological advancements in the semiconductor industry. Our innovative solutions enable chipmakers to power progress in nearly all aspects of modern life, and it takes each member of our...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:16,393
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SK hynix America

SK hynix America

-
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
Lam Research

Lam Research

-
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 Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SK hynix America in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lam Research in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SK hynix America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SK hynix America 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 - Lam Research (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lam Research 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...
SK hynix America

SK hynix America

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lam Research

Lam Research

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8