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
Keller Williams Realty, LLCKeller Williams Realty, LLC
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
Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Suite 400, Austin, TX, US, 78746

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://headquarters.kw.com/
799/1000Fair

Austin, Texas-based Keller Williams, the world’s largest real estate franchise by agent count, has more than 1,100 offices and 176,000 agents. The franchise is also No. 1 in units and sales volume in the United States. Since 1983, the company has cultivated an agent-c...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:102,888
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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
Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Keller Williams Realty, LLC

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Keller Williams Realty, LLC in 2026.

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 - Keller Williams Realty, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Keller Williams Realty, LLC 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.
Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEL020091825

FAQ

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