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
SavillsSavills
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
Savills

Savills

33 Margaret Street, London, GB, W1G 0JD

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.savills.com
760/1000Fair

Savills is a global real estate advisor helping people thrive through places and spaces. With over 42,000 professionals in more than 700 offices across the Americas, Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East, we combine local knowledge with global insight to del...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:13,748
Subsidiaries:32
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
Savills

Savills

-
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 Savills 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 - Savills (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Savills 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
Savills

Savills

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA