Comparison Overview

Ingersoll Rand

VS

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Ingersoll Rand

525 Harbour Place Drive, Suite 600, Davidson, 28036, US
Last Update: 2026-04-01
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.IRCO.com

Ingersoll Rand Inc. (NYSE:IR), driven by an entrepreneurial spirit and ownership mindset, is dedicated to Making Life Better for our employees, customers, shareholders, and planet. Customers lean on us for exceptional performance and durability in mission-critical flow creation and industrial solutions. Supported by over 80+ respected brands, our products and services excel in the most complex and harsh conditions. Our employees develop customers for life through their daily commitment to expertise, productivity, and efficiency. For more information, visit www.IRCO.com.

NAICS: 3332
NAICS Definition: Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees: 15,139
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

2−3 Marunouchi 3-Chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, JP, 100-8332
Last Update: 2026-04-01
Between 800 and 849
https://www.mhi.com

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Group is one of the world’s leading industrial firms. For more than 130 years, we have channeled big thinking into solutions that move the world forward – advancing the lives of everyone who shares our planet. We deliver innovative and integrated solutions across a wide range of industries, covering land, sea, sky and even space. MHI Group is 80,000 strong in more than 200 companies worldwide, operating in various sectors: power & energy, industrial machinery, urban infrastructure, aerospace and defense. We have a consolidated revenue of around 40 billion USD, and have consistently been a Fortune Global 500 company since the list's inception. We aim to contribute to environmental sustainability while achieving global growth, using our leading-edge technologies. By bringing people and ideas together as one, we continue to pave the way to a future of shared success. Learn more about us at https://www.mhi.com See our solutions in action at https://spectra.mhi.com Explore job opportunities at https://www.mhi.com/recruit By accessing, using or interacting with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries on LinkedIn, you accept and agree to be bound by these guidelines: https://www.mhi.com/conditions/social.html

NAICS: 3332
NAICS Definition: Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees: 15,576
Subsidiaries: 32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ingersoll-rand.jpeg
Ingersoll Rand
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mitsubishi-heavy-industries.jpeg
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Ingersoll Rand
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ingersoll Rand in 2026.

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2026.

Incident History — Ingersoll Rand (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ingersoll Rand cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ingersoll-rand.jpeg
Ingersoll Rand
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mitsubishi-heavy-industries.jpeg
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ingersoll Rand company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Ingersoll Rand company.

In the current year, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company and Ingersoll Rand company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company nor Ingersoll Rand company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company nor Ingersoll Rand company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company nor Ingersoll Rand company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Ingersoll Rand company nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ingersoll Rand company.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries company employs more people globally than Ingersoll Rand company, reflecting its scale as a Industrial Machinery Manufacturing.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ingersoll Rand nor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Payroll Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /manage_user.php of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: 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
References
Description

A vulnerability was identified in Axiomatic Bento4 up to 1.6.0-641. Affected is the function AP4_BitReader::SkipBits of the file Ap4Dac4Atom.cpp of the component DSI v1 Parser. Such manipulation of the argument n_presentations leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be performed locally. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: 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
References
Description

A vulnerability was determined in Axiomatic Bento4 up to 1.6.0-641. This impacts the function AP4_BitReader::ReadCache of the file Ap4Dac4Atom.cpp of the component MP4 File Parser. This manipulation causes heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be launched locally. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: 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
References
Description

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.6, there is a heap-buffer-overflow (HBO) in icAnsiToUtf8() in the XML conversion path. The issue is triggered by a crafted ICC profile which causes icAnsiToUtf8(std::string&, char const*) to treat an input buffer as a C-string and call operations that rely on strlen()/null-termination. AddressSanitizer reports an out-of-bounds READ of size 115 past a 114-byte heap allocation, with the failure observed while running the iccToXml tool. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.6.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References
Description

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.6, there is a stack-buffer-overflow (SBO) in CIccTagFixedNum<>::GetValues() and a related bug chain. The primary crash is an AddressSanitizer-reported WRITE of size 4 that overflows a 4-byte stack variable (rv) via the call chain CIccTagFixedNum::GetValues() -> CIccTagStruct::GetElemNumberValue(). This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.6.

Published
Date
2026-03-31
Updated
Date
2026-03-31
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References