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

Comparison Overview

Al-FuttaimAl-Futtaim
VS
AcostaAcosta
Al-Futtaim

Al-Futtaim

Festival Tower, Dubai Festival City, PO Box 152, Dubai, AE

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.alfuttaim.com
825/1000Good

Founded in the 1930s, Al-Futtaim has evolved into a leading conglomerate with a rich history of long-lasting and diverse expertise across automotive, retail, real estate, and finance sectors. As a family-owned business, we take a long-term view in everything we do becau...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:21,969
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Acosta

Acosta

6651 Gate Pkwy, Jacksonville, 32256, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.acosta.com
791/1000Fair

Acosta brings simplicity to retail sales. We act as a catalyst to boldly connect brands, retailers and consumers, fueling growth and building long-term value throughout North America and Europe. We are deeply embedded in every corner of the retail industry, strengtheni...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:13,177
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Al-Futtaim

Al-Futtaim

-
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
Acosta

Acosta

-
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 Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Al-Futtaim in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Al-Futtaim (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Al-Futtaim 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 - Acosta (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acosta 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...
Al-Futtaim

Al-Futtaim

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Acosta

Acosta

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-11466
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in zilliztech deep-searcher up to 0.0.2. This affects the function CollectionRouter.invoke of the file deepsearcher/agent/collection_router.py. This manipulation of the argument kwargs causes improper access controls. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-07
UPDATED
Date2026-06-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-11465
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in songquanpeng one-api up to 0.6.11-preview.7. Affected by this issue is the function Redeem of the file model/redemption.go of the component Redemption Code Top-Up Endpoint. The manipulation results in business logic errors. The attack may be launched remotely. The attack requires a high level of complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-07
UPDATED
Date2026-06-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-11464
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function queryPageList of the file src\main\java\org\jeecg\modules\system\controller\SysUserController.java of the component User List Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument salt leads to information disclosure. The attack may be initiated remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. A fix is planned for the upcoming release.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-07
UPDATED
Date2026-06-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-11463
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in USCiLab Cereal up to 1.3.2. Affected is an unknown function of the component Shared Pointer Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to type confusion. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-07
UPDATED
Date2026-06-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-11462
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Chengdu Everbrite Network Technology BeikeShop up to 1.6.0.22. This impacts the function callback of the file plugins/Stripe/Controllers/StripeController.php of the component Stripe Plugin. Performing a manipulation of the argument Request results in improper authorization. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The patch is named 6719e0fc690ea0a998452092862e0f0a17c65968. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-07
UPDATED
Date2026-06-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9