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

Comparison Overview

Tata BlueScope SteelTata BlueScope Steel
VS
Renewal by AndersenRenewal by Andersen
Tata BlueScope Steel

Tata BlueScope Steel

Kalpataru Infinia, Floor no. 9 & 10, Wakdewadi, Final Plot no. 21, Sub plot no.3 at CTS no. 15/1, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra, IN, 411005

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Tata BlueScope Steel is a leading manufacturer and supplier of colour-coated steel, building solutions, and premium roofing products in India and the SAARC region. Our journey began as a strategic joint venture between two global steel giants—Tata Steel and BlueScope St...

NAICS:236
NAICS Definition:Construction of Buildings
Employees:1,133
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Renewal by Andersen

Renewal by Andersen

9900 Jamaica Avenue S, Cottage Grove, MN, 55016, US

Last Update: 22/03/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Renewal by Andersen is the window and door replacement subsidiary of Andersen Corporation, a company that’s revolutionized the window and door business for more than 120 years. Since 1903, Andersen Corporation has been known for its high-quality, innovative, and well-c...

NAICS:236
NAICS Definition:Construction of Buildings
Employees:10,067
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tata BlueScope Steel

Tata BlueScope 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
Renewal by Andersen

Renewal by Andersen

-
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 Building Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata BlueScope Steel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Building Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Renewal by Andersen in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tata BlueScope Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Renewal by Andersen (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Renewal by Andersen 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...
Tata BlueScope Steel

Tata BlueScope Steel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Renewal by Andersen

Renewal by Andersen

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
REN343072725

FAQ

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