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

Comparison Overview

TETRA Technologies do BrasilTETRA Technologies do Brasil
VS
TechnipFMCTechnipFMC
TETRA Technologies do Brasil

TETRA Technologies do Brasil

Rod. Amaral Peixoto, Km 159, Rio Das Ostras, 28890-000, BR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.onetetra.com
743/1000Moderate

Founded in 1981, TETRA continues to apply its 40+ years of expertise in aqueous chemistry to forge the pathway to future success while remaining the ONE trusted leader in the markets we serve. Recognizing that new sources of energy are essential in today’s evolving land...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:51
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TechnipFMC

TechnipFMC

Hadrian House, Wincomblee Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 3PL, GB

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://technipfmc.com
795/1000Fair

TechnipFMC is a leading technology provider to the traditional and new energies industry, delivering fully integrated projects, products, and services. With our proprietary technologies and comprehensive solutions, we are transforming our clients’ project economics, h...

NAICS:211
NAICS Definition:Oil and Gas Extraction
Employees:38,099
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TETRA Technologies do Brasil

TETRA Technologies do Brasil

-
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
TechnipFMC

TechnipFMC

-
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 Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TETRA Technologies do Brasil in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Oil and Gas Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TechnipFMC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - TETRA Technologies do Brasil (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TETRA Technologies do Brasil cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

TechnipFMC 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...
TETRA Technologies do Brasil

TETRA Technologies do Brasil

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TechnipFMC

TechnipFMC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8