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

Comparison Overview

AMPORTS Inc.AMPORTS Inc.
VS
A.P. Moller - MaerskA.P. Moller - Maersk
AMPORTS Inc.

AMPORTS Inc.

10060 Skinner Lake Dr, Jacksonville, 32246, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.amports.com
717/1000Moderate

Our global vision is to be the Premier Automotive Services Company with a perpetual commitment to quality, safety, operational excellence, and customer satisfaction. For over 60 years, AMPORTS has been a leader in the automotive processing industry. With 13 locations i...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:424
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
A.P. Moller - Maersk

A.P. Moller - Maersk

Esplanaden 50, Copenhagen, DK, 1098

Last Update: 12/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.maersk.com
676/1000Weak

A.P. Moller - Maersk is an integrated transport and logistics company; going all the way, together, for our customers and society. ALL THE WAY is our commitment to connect the world so that everyone has both the possibility and the ability to trade, grow and thrive. The...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:82,857
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AMPORTS Inc.

AMPORTS Inc.

-
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
A.P. Moller - Maersk

A.P. Moller - Maersk

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AMPORTS Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A.P. Moller - Maersk in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - AMPORTS Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AMPORTS Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - A.P. Moller - Maersk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A.P. Moller - Maersk 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...
AMPORTS Inc.

AMPORTS Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AMP630092125
A.P. Moller - Maersk

A.P. Moller - Maersk

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MEREQUUNIMAEMGMGOOTOYSNOALLORARIPTIC1775528897
🔒 Incident : Breach
T-M416050724
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MAE1781271625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8