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

Comparison Overview

AFFLINK | A PFG CompanyAFFLINK | A PFG Company
VS
AyesaAyesa
AFFLINK | A PFG Company

AFFLINK | A PFG Company

1400 AFFLINK Place, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35406, US

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.afflink.com/
751/1000Fair

As the Home of The Independent, AFFLINK connects more than 300 Distributor Members and 250 Preferred Suppliers of Janitorial, Packaging, Foodservice, Healthcare, Safety, Industrial and Office products to thousands of customers, around the globe, everyday. By truly unde...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:132
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ayesa

Ayesa

Parque Científico Tecnológico Cartuja, Sevilla, Andalucía 41092, ES, Sevilla, Sevilla, ES

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ayesa.com
783/1000Fair

Ayesa is a global provider of technology and engineering services with more than 11500 employees in twenty-three countries across Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia. The company develops and implements digital solutions for the private and public sector and uses the...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:11,917
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AFFLINK | A PFG Company

AFFLINK | A PFG Company

-
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
Ayesa

Ayesa

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AFFLINK | A PFG Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ayesa in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - AFFLINK | A PFG Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AFFLINK | A PFG Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ayesa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ayesa 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...
AFFLINK | A PFG Company

AFFLINK | A PFG Company

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ayesa

Ayesa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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