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

Comparison Overview

Tata SteelTata Steel
VS
OricaOrica
Tata Steel

Tata Steel

Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.tatasteel.com
802/1000Good

Tata Steel group is among the top global steel companies with an annual crude steel capacity of 34 million tonnes per annum. It is one of the world's most geographically-diversified steel producers, with operations and commercial presence across the world. The group (ex...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:56,276
Subsidiaries:76
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
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
Tata Steel

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 Tata Steel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Orica in 2026.

Incidents

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

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...
Tata Steel

Tata Steel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Orica

Orica

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-13512
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-13511
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in VoltAgent up to 2.1.17. Affected by this issue is the function handleGetMemoryConversation of the file packages/server-core/src/handlers/memory.handlers.ts of the component Memory REST API. Executing a manipulation of the argument conversationId can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.6
CVE-2026-13510
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in SimStudioAI sim up to 0.6.92. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality in the library apps/sim/lib/core/security/deployment.ts of the component Password Protection Handler. Performing a manipulation results in use of weak hash. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-13509
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in RAGapp up to 0.1.5. Affected is the function FileHandler.upload_file/FileHandler.remove_file of the file src/ragapp/backend/controllers/files.py of the component Knowledge File Handler. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-13508
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in khoj-ai khoj up to 2.0.0-beta.28. This impacts an unknown function of the file src/khoj/routers/api_chat.py of the component Conversation Sharing Handler. This manipulation of the argument conversation.agent causes incorrect authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1