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

Comparison Overview

Ashford Inc. Asset ManagementAshford Inc. Asset Management
VS
GreystarGreystar
Ashford Inc. Asset Management

Ashford Inc. Asset Management

14185 Dallas Pkwy, Dallas, Texas, 75254, US

Last Update: 05/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.ashfordinc.com/
756/1000Fair

Ashford Asset Management provides global asset management to the real estate and hospitality sectors. Ashford's principals have a long track record of success and many years of experience investing and operating in the hospitality industry. Currently, Ashford serves as ...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Greystar

Greystar

465 Meeting St, Suite 500, Charleston, South Carolina, US, 29403

Last Update: 21/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.greystar.com
674/1000Weak

Founded in 1993, Greystar provides world-class service in the residential rental housing industry. Our innovative vertically integrated business model integrates the management, development and investment disciplines of the rental housing industry on international, regi...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:19,744
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ashford Inc. Asset Management

Ashford Inc. Asset Management

-
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
Greystar

Greystar

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ashford Inc. Asset Management in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

Greystar has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Ashford Inc. Asset Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ashford Inc. Asset Management cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Greystar 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...
Ashford Inc. Asset Management

Ashford Inc. Asset Management

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Greystar

Greystar

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRE1790009369
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GRETHE1773872875

FAQ

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