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

Comparison Overview

Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata SteelIndustrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel
VS
OricaOrica
Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel

Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel

43 JN Road, Kolkata, 700071, IN

Last Update: 26/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://ibmd.tatasteel.com/
688/1000Weak

The Industrial By-products Management Division (IBMD) of Tata Steel has adopted circular economy principles as an integral part of its business values. Our goal, at IBMD, is the 100% efficient use of by-products and sending zero waste to landfill. We make optimal use of...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Orica

Orica

1 Nicholson St, East Melbourne, 3000, AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.orica.com
777/1000Fair

Our story began in 1874, when we first supplied explosives to the Victorian goldfields in Australia. Since then, we have grown to become one of the world’s leading mining and infrastructure solutions providers. From the production and supply of explosives, blasting s...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:11,057
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel

Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata 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
Orica

Orica

-
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 Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Orica in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Orica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Orica 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...
Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel

Industrial By-Products Management Division, Tata Steel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DELOPETATAPPCELCOU1782491615
Orica

Orica

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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