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

Comparison Overview

All-Flo, a PSG brandAll-Flo, a PSG brand
VS
Atlas CopcoAtlas Copco
All-Flo, a PSG brand

All-Flo, a PSG brand

22069 Van Buren St, Grand Terrace, 92313, US

Last Update: 25/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://ow.ly/mOok50WKi24
745/1000Moderate

All-Flo™ is a leading brand in air-operated double-diaphragm (AODD) pumps and accessories for challenging applications in a wide range of markets such as chemical, mining, oil and gas, semiconductor, and food and beverage industries. All-Flo branded products offer a var...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:60
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Atlas Copco

Atlas Copco

Sickla Industriväg 19, Stockholm, SE, 131 54

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

Atlas Copco delivers innovative products and solutions that help businesses grow and drive progress. Our portfolio spans compressed air and gas systems and treatment, vacuum solutions, industrial power tools, assembly systems, and power and flow solutions. We bring a ...

NAICS:333
NAICS Definition:Machinery Manufacturing
Employees:35,258
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
All-Flo, a PSG brand

All-Flo, a PSG brand

-
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
Atlas Copco

Atlas Copco

-
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 Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for All-Flo, a PSG brand in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Atlas Copco in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - All-Flo, a PSG brand (X = Date, Y = Severity)

All-Flo, a PSG brand 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 - Atlas Copco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Atlas Copco 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...
All-Flo, a PSG brand

All-Flo, a PSG brand

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Atlas Copco

Atlas Copco

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
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:H/I:N/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:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8