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

Comparison Overview

A All Animal ControlA All Animal Control
VS
WMWM
A All Animal Control

A All Animal Control

10, ww, undefined, 28173, US

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

A All Animal Control is a 19 year old national company with 40 locations across the U.S. We specialize in the Wildlife Control and Removal of a wide range of species including squirrels, raccoons, snakes, bats, opossums, armadillos, wild hogs, skunks, birds, rats, mi...

NAICS:54162
NAICS Definition:Environmental Consulting Services
Employees:51
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
WM

WM

800 Capitol St, Suite 3000, Houston, Texas, US, 77002

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.wm.com
820/1000Good

WM is North America's leading provider of integrated environmental solutions. We partner with our customers and communities to manage and reduce waste from collection to disposal while recovering valuable resources and creating clean, renewable energy. We are on a quest...

NAICS:54162
NAICS Definition:Environmental Consulting Services
Employees:27,214
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
A All Animal Control

A All Animal Control

-
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
WM

WM

-
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 Environmental Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A All Animal Control in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Environmental Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for WM in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - A All Animal Control (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A All Animal Control 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 - WM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WM 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 All Animal Control

A All Animal Control

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
WM

WM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA