Comparison Overview

Ternium

VS

Rodan + Fields

Ternium

Av. Guerrero Nte. No. 151 Col. Cuauhtémoc San Nicolás de los Garza, Monterrey, Nuevo León, MX
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

Ternium (NYSE:TX) is the largest steel producer in Latin America. With production centers in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico, Ternium has an extensive network of service and distribution centers in the continent, in addition to participating in the control group of Usiminas, a leading company in the Brazilian steel market. More than 35,000 people throughout the Americas make up a multicultural and highly-qualified team and are the foundation for an industrial project with a production capacity of 15.4 million tons of crude steel per year. A strong integration of the production process, industrial excellence, and constant innovation are part of our identity and drive Ternium's growth along with its extensive value chain, with customers and suppliers from industries such as construction, automotive, household appliances, capital goods, packaging, food, and energy. Thanks to digital transformation, research, development processes, as well as the creation of new products with the highest technology, today we are at the forefront of the steel industry, which has an important role to play in the sustainable development of our societies. Every day, in every part of the continent where we work, we grow together with communities, and we seek to support our commitment to safety and the environment in everything we do.

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 11,687
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Rodan + Fields

60 Spear Street, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105
Last Update: 2026-01-18

We are Rodan + Fields, founded by Stanford-trained dermatologists with a mission to revolutionize skincare for women everywhere. Our products are dermatologist-developed and inspired by Women-Backed Science™, delivering real, visible results. We understand what works for women’s skin, from acne to the signs of aging, and are dedicated to providing safe, effective solutions that truly work. As the #1 Female Dermatologist-Founded Skincare Brand in the US*, we continue to innovate and grow. With over 12 million customers and more than 15 years of proven results, Rodan + Fields is committed to delivering the best for your skin. We value diversity and inclusivity and are always looking for passionate individuals who want to make a meaningful impact. If you’re driven by science and skincare, and want to help women achieve healthy, glowing skin, we’d love to have you with us. *For more details visit our website

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 18,226
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ternium.jpeg
Ternium
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rodan-fields.jpeg
Rodan + Fields
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Ternium
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rodan + Fields
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ternium in 2026.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rodan + Fields in 2026.

Incident History — Ternium (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ternium cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Rodan + Fields (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rodan + Fields cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ternium.jpeg
Ternium
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rodan-fields.jpeg
Rodan + Fields
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ternium company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Rodan + Fields company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Rodan + Fields company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Ternium company.

In the current year, Rodan + Fields company and Ternium company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rodan + Fields company nor Ternium company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rodan + Fields company nor Ternium company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Rodan + Fields company nor Ternium company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Ternium company nor Rodan + Fields company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Ternium company nor Rodan + Fields company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Rodan + Fields company employs more people globally than Ternium company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ternium nor Rodan + Fields holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N