Comparison Overview

A P Moller Maersk group

VS

Rover.com

A P Moller Maersk group

Mumbai, Maharastra, IN, 400077
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

None

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 20
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Rover.com

720 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

At Rover, everyone has ownership of their work and the opportunity to make a true impact. We believe that being diverse and inclusive is key to our success and encourage every employee to share their unique perspective while being their true self. We believe everyone deserves the unconditional love of a pet, and Rover exists to make it easier to experience that love. We’re supporting dog owners and empowering dog sitters to run thriving pet-care businesses in your neighborhoods. The Rover app and website connect dog and cat parents with loving pet sitters and dog walkers in neighborhoods across the US, Canada, and Europe.

NAICS: 81
NAICS Definition: Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees: 10,830
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
A P Moller Maersk group
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/roverdotcom.jpeg
Rover.com
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
A P Moller Maersk group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rover.com
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A P Moller Maersk group in 2025.

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rover.com in 2025.

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

Incident History — Rover.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rover.com cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
A P Moller Maersk group
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2017
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Malicious ransomware
Motivation: Ransom payment
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/roverdotcom.jpeg
Rover.com
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Rover.com company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to A P Moller Maersk group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

A P Moller Maersk group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Rover.com company has not reported any.

In the current year, Rover.com company and A P Moller Maersk group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rover.com company nor A P Moller Maersk group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rover.com company nor A P Moller Maersk group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

A P Moller Maersk group company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Rover.com company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group company nor Rover.com company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group company nor Rover.com company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Rover.com company employs more people globally than A P Moller Maersk group company, reflecting its scale as a Consumer Services.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds HIPAA certification.

Neither A P Moller Maersk group nor Rover.com holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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: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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N