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

Comparison Overview

Sugar SteelSugar Steel
VS
OCP GroupOCP Group
Sugar Steel

Sugar Steel

2521 State Street, None, Chicago Heights, Illinois, US, 60411

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.sugarsteel.com
731/1000Moderate

Sugar Steel prides itself on establishing and developing long lasting partnerships with our customers. Our ability to save time and money for our customers, and creating value for them with our products and services, is our claim to fame day in and day out. We are a s...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:79
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
OCP Group

OCP Group

2-4, rue Al Abtal, Hay Erraha, 20200, Casablanca, Maroc, Casablanca, 20000, MA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ocpgroup.ma
792/1000Fair

Headquartered in Morocco, OCP Group is one of the world’s largest custodian and supplier of phosphate-based plant nutrition solutions and associated products for soil health and a leader in applied science and education. Our mission is to provide customized plant nutrit...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:12,483
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sugar Steel

Sugar Steel

-
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
OCP Group

OCP Group

-
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 Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sugar Steel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OCP Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sugar Steel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sugar Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

OCP Group 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...
Sugar Steel

Sugar Steel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SUG035090625
OCP Group

OCP Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1