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

Comparison Overview

Thomas ProcessingThomas Processing
VS
CatalentCatalent
Thomas Processing

Thomas Processing

200 Airport Rd, Elgin, Illinois 60123, US

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Founded in 1959, Thomas Processing is a global leader in the design, development, manufacturing and integration of pharmaceutical machinery, nutritional machinery, over-the-counter (OTC) tablet processing machinery and tablet press tooling. For more information about Th...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Catalent

Catalent

101 E Kennedy Blvd, Tampa, Florida, US, 33602

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.catalent.com
782/1000Fair

Championing the missions that matter™. Catalent, Inc. is a leading global contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) and trusted partner to pharma, biotech, and consumer health companies worldwide. We put patients first in everything we do, helping peopl...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:12,604
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Thomas Processing

Thomas Processing

-
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
Catalent

Catalent

-
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 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Thomas Processing in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Catalent in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Thomas Processing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thomas Processing 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 - Catalent (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Catalent 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...
Thomas Processing

Thomas Processing

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Catalent

Catalent

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8