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

Comparison Overview

American WoodmarkAmerican Woodmark
VS
Travis Perkins plcTravis Perkins plc
American Woodmark

American Woodmark

561 Shady Elm Rd, Winchester, 22602, US

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://americanwoodmark.com
735/1000Moderate

American Woodmark celebrates the creativity in all of us. With over 8,600 employees and more than a dozen brands, we’re one of the nation’s largest cabinet manufacturers. From inspiration to installation, we help people find their unique style and turn their home into a...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:3,643
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Travis Perkins plc

Travis Perkins plc

Ryehill House, Rye Hill Close, Northampton, NN5 7UA, GB

Last Update: 19/09/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Travis Perkins plc is the UK’s largest distributor of building materials to trade customers. The breadth, reach and scale of our business means we are in a unique position to provide customers with the building materials and tools they need for their projects, when and ...

NAICS:4233
NAICS Definition:Lumber and Other Construction Materials Merchant Wholesalers
Employees:12,742
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
American Woodmark

American Woodmark

-
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
Travis Perkins plc

Travis Perkins plc

-
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 Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for American Woodmark in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wholesale Building Materials Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Travis Perkins plc in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - American Woodmark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

American Woodmark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Travis Perkins plc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Travis Perkins plc 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...
American Woodmark

American Woodmark

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AME439072725
Travis Perkins plc

Travis Perkins plc

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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