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

Comparison Overview

Steel Recycling Business, Tata SteelSteel Recycling Business, Tata Steel
VS
JSW SteelJSW Steel
Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel

Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel

Tata Steel, 9th Floor, Emaar Plaza, Gurgaon, 122002, IN

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile

Long Live the Steel! Yes, Steel is for Eternity & can be recycled Infinitely! This property of steel makes it a candidate for the Circular Economy. Steel Recycling Business, (SRB) is yet another pioneering initiative from Tata Steel. It is a move towards Sustainable...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:80
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
JSW Steel

JSW Steel

Bandra Kurla Complex,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400 051

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jsw.in
781/1000Fair

Over the last 35 years, we have partnered the country in its journey to self-reliance, by embracing sustainability, adopting cutting-edge technology and having innovation and R&D initiatives at the heart of our culture. From humble beginnings with a single plant in 1982...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:22,166
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel

Steel Recycling Business, 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
JSW Steel

JSW 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JSW Steel in 2026.

Incidents

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

Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

JSW Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel

Steel Recycling Business, Tata Steel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
JSW Steel

JSW Steel

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JSW182311222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2