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

Comparison Overview

voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KGvoestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG
VS
OricaOrica
voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

Mariazeller-Straße 25, Kapfenberg, 8605, AT

Last Update: 27/12/2025

View Profile

For generations the name BÖHLER has been synonymous worldwide with top quality specialty steels. Our customers are what drives us to give our best every day. Leading companies in future-oriented industries. Highly innovative specialists who not only demand high-performa...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:636
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Orica

Orica

1 Nicholson St, East Melbourne, 3000, AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.orica.com
777/1000Fair

Our story began in 1874, when we first supplied explosives to the Victorian goldfields in Australia. Since then, we have grown to become one of the world’s leading mining and infrastructure solutions providers. From the production and supply of explosives, blasting s...

NAICS:212
NAICS Definition:Mining (except Oil and Gas)
Employees:11,057
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

-
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
Orica

Orica

-
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 voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Orica in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG 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 - Orica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Orica 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...
voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

voestalpine BÖHLER Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Orica

Orica

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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