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

Comparison Overview

UCBUCB
VS
Novo NordiskNovo Nordisk
UCB

UCB

Allée de la Recherche, 60, Brussels, BE

Last Update: 14/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ucb.com
815/1000Good

At UCB, we believe everyone deserves to live the best life they can - as free as possible from the challenges and uncertainty of disease. Our purpose is to support people living with severe central nervous system and immunological conditions by delivering meaningful sol...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:14,451
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Novo Alle, Bagsværd, DK, 2880

Last Update: 20/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.novonordisk.com
720/1000Moderate

We’re not your typical healthcare company. In a modern world of quick fixes, we focus on solutions to defeat serious chronic disease and create long-term health. Our unordinary mindset is at the heart of everything we do. We seek out new ideas and put people first as we...

NAICS:3254
NAICS Definition:Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing
Employees:65,152
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UCB

UCB

-
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
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

-
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 UCB in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Novo Nordisk has 183.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

UCB 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 - Novo Nordisk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Novo Nordisk 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...
UCB

UCB

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
NOV1781951217
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOV1781195765
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ORA1780418023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2