Comparison Overview

Johnson Controls

VS

FLSmidth

Johnson Controls

Milwaukee, Cork, Ireland, IE, T12 X8N6
Last Update: 2026-04-01
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.johnsoncontrols.com

At Johnson Controls, we transform the environments where people live, work, learn and play. As the global leader in smart, healthy and sustainable buildings, our mission is to reimagine the performance of buildings to serve people, places and the planet. Building on a proud history of 140 years of innovation, we deliver the blueprint of the future for industries such as healthcare, schools, data centers, airports, stadiums, manufacturing and beyond through OpenBlue, our comprehensive digital offering. Today, Johnson Controls offers the world`s largest portfolio of building technology and software as well as service solutions from some of the most trusted names in the industry. Visit www.johnsoncontrols.com for more information.

NAICS: 3332
NAICS Definition: Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees: 60,211
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
View Profile

FLSmidth

Vigerslev Allé 77, Copenhagen, Valby, DK, DK-2500
Last Update: 2026-04-01
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fls.com

FLSmidth is a full flowsheet technology and service supplier to the global mining industry. We enable our customers to improve performance, lower operating costs and reduce environmental impact. MissionZero is our sustainability ambition towards zero emissions in mining by 2030. We work within fully validated Science-Based Targets, have a clear commitment to improving the sustainability performance of the global mining industry and aim to become carbon neutral in our own operations by 2030. FLSmidth is listed on NASDAQ OMX Exchange Copenhagen. #mining #FLS #MissionZero #EmpoweringTheFutureOfMining Privacy policy - https://fls.com/en/legal/privacy-policy

NAICS: 3332
NAICS Definition: Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Employees: 13,187
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-controls.jpeg
Johnson Controls
—
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/flsmidth.jpeg
FLSmidth
—
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
Johnson Controls
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
FLSmidth
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Johnson Controls in 2026.

Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FLSmidth in 2026.

Incident History — Johnson Controls (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson Controls cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — FLSmidth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FLSmidth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-controls.jpeg
Johnson Controls
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Publicly Accessible Devices, Default Credentials, Unpatched Software Vulnerabilities, Lack of Firewalls/Encryption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/flsmidth.jpeg
FLSmidth
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Johnson Controls company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to FLSmidth company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Johnson Controls company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas FLSmidth company has not reported any.

In the current year, FLSmidth company and Johnson Controls company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Johnson Controls company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while FLSmidth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither FLSmidth company nor Johnson Controls company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither FLSmidth company nor Johnson Controls company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Johnson Controls company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while FLSmidth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Johnson Controls company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to FLSmidth company.

Johnson Controls company employs more people globally than FLSmidth company, reflecting its scale as a Industrial Machinery Manufacturing.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Johnson Controls nor FLSmidth 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