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

Comparison Overview

A & E Relocations/Mayflower TransitA & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit
VS
SBB CFF FFSSBB CFF FFS
A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit

A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit

2604 Willamette Dr NE, Lacey, WA, 98506, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

A&E Relocation Services has been locally owned and operated since 1898. Our affiliation with Mayflower Transit for Interstate and International business allows us to ship one piece or large quantities of household or office goods to any location in the world … or simply...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:8
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SBB CFF FFS

SBB CFF FFS

Hilfikerstrasse 1, Bern, 3000, CH

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.sbb.ch/jobs
783/1000Fair

We shape the mobility of the future – simple, personal, connected. SBB’s comprehensive service contract allows us to offer a wide range of exciting careers in all areas of business. Thanks to this variety, many different career paths are possible, which we support th...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:17,994
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit

A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit

-
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
SBB CFF FFS

SBB CFF FFS

-
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 Transportation/Trucking/Railroad Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation/Trucking/Railroad Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SBB CFF FFS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit 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 - SBB CFF FFS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SBB CFF FFS 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...
A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit

A & E Relocations/Mayflower Transit

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SBB CFF FFS

SBB CFF FFS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8