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

Comparison Overview

Turning Point Brands, Inc.Turning Point Brands, Inc.
VS
DrägerDräger
Turning Point Brands, Inc.

Turning Point Brands, Inc.

5201 Interchange Way, Louisville, 40229, US

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

Turning Point Brands, Inc. (NYSE: TPB) is a leading, manufacturer, marketer and distributor of branded consumer products with active ingredients. We sell a wide range of products exclusively to adult consumers, from our iconic brands to our next generation products to f...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:266
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Dräger

Dräger

Moislinger Allee 53-55, Lübeck, 23552, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.draeger.com
793/1000Fair

Dräger is an international leader in the fields of medical and safety technology. The family-owned company was founded in Lübeck, Germany, in 1889. The company’s long-term success is based on the four key strengths of its value-driven culture: customer intimacy, profess...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:10,927
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Turning Point Brands, Inc.

Turning Point Brands, Inc.

-
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
Dräger

Dräger

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Turning Point Brands, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dräger in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Turning Point Brands, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Turning Point Brands, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Dräger 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...
Turning Point Brands, Inc.

Turning Point Brands, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TUR1006091725
🔒 Incident : Breach
TUR252072725
Dräger

Dräger

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1