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

Comparison Overview

A P Moller Maersk groupA P Moller Maersk group
VS
Rentokil TerminixRentokil Terminix
A P Moller Maersk group

A P Moller Maersk group

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.maesrkline.com
771/1000Fair

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:19
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Rentokil Terminix

Rentokil Terminix

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

The Rentokil and Terminix family of brands have come together to form the world’s leading pest control company. With our shared vision, we’ll be expanding our products, services, and technology. And with our combined resources, we’ll do more to power innovation and deve...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:12,740
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
A P Moller Maersk group

A P Moller Maersk group

-
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
Rentokil Terminix

Rentokil Terminix

-
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 Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A P Moller Maersk group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rentokil Terminix in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - A P Moller Maersk group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A P Moller Maersk group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Rentokil Terminix (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rentokil Terminix cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
A P Moller Maersk group

A P Moller Maersk group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
A-P428050724
Rentokil Terminix

Rentokil Terminix

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
REN237072725

FAQ

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