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

Comparison Overview

Smiths Group plcSmiths Group plc
VS
MetsoMetso
Smiths Group plc

Smiths Group plc

GB

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smiths.com
773/1000Fair

For over 170 years, Smiths Group has been pioneering progress by engineering a better future. We serve millions of people every year, to help make the world safer, more energy efficient and productive, and better connected, across four global markets: Energy, General I...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:9,730
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Metso

Metso

Rauhalanpuisto 9, P.O. Box 1000, Espoo, Uusimaa, FI, 02230

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.metso.com/
781/1000Fair

Metso is a frontrunner in sustainable technologies, end-to-end solutions and services for the aggregates, minerals processing and metals refining industries globally.  By improving our customers’ energy and water efficiency, increasing their productivity, and reducing ...

NAICS:3332
NAICS Definition:Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:20,240
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Smiths Group plc

Smiths Group plc

-
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
Metso

Metso

-
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 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Smiths Group plc in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metso in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Smiths Group plc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Smiths Group plc 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 - Metso (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metso 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...
Smiths Group plc

Smiths Group plc

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Metso

Metso

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2