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

Comparison Overview

AB InBev Korea 오비맥주AB InBev Korea 오비맥주
VS
Levy RestaurantsLevy Restaurants
AB InBev Korea 오비맥주

AB InBev Korea 오비맥주

8F, 517, Yeongdong-daero , Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06164, KR

Last Update: 28/10/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.obbeer.co.kr
757/1000Fair

We are a company of owners. We believe that you get out what you put in. We strive to be the best. Pursuing our Dream, committed to improving lives for more people in more communities. For centuries, we’ve been bringing people together, through sports, through music an...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:348
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Levy Restaurants

Levy Restaurants

980 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, 60611, US

Last Update: 16/09/2026

View Profile
775/1000Fair

Discover the Levy Difference Passion is a great gift, and we have a lot of gifted people. Our contagious enthusiasm stimulates minds, engages senses and touches hearts. Each guest is greeted with a warm welcome, served with pride and extended a heartfelt invitation t...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,651
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AB InBev Korea 오비맥주

AB InBev Korea 오비맥주

-
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
Levy Restaurants

Levy Restaurants

-
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 Food & Beverages Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AB InBev Korea 오비맥주 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food & Beverages Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Levy Restaurants in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - AB InBev Korea 오비맥주 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AB InBev Korea 오비맥주 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 - Levy Restaurants (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Levy Restaurants 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...
AB InBev Korea 오비맥주

AB InBev Korea 오비맥주

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Levy Restaurants

Levy Restaurants

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9