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.Ashford Inc.
VS
CoStar GroupCoStar Group
Ashford Inc.

Ashford Inc.

14185 Dallas Pkwy, None, Dallas, Texas, US, None

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ashfordinc.com
675/1000Weak

Ashford Inc. is an alternative asset management company with a portfolio of strategic operating businesses that provide global asset management, investment management and related services to the real estate and hospitality sectors. Ashford's principals have a long track...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:114
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
CoStar Group

CoStar Group

1201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia, US, 22209

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.costargroup.com
788/1000Fair

CoStar Group (NASDAQ: CSGP) is a global leader in commercial real estate information, analytics, online marketplaces, and 3D digital twin technology. Founded in 1986, CoStar Group is dedicated to digitizing the world’s real estate, empowering all people to discover prop...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,942
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ashford Inc.

Ashford 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
CoStar Group

CoStar Group

-
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. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CoStar Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - CoStar Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CoStar Group 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...
Ashford Inc.

Ashford Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASH225072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASH823072525
CoStar Group

CoStar Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8