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

Comparison Overview

Bob's Red MillBob's Red Mill
VS
US FoodsUS Foods
Bob's Red Mill

Bob's Red Mill

13521 SE Pheasant Court, Milwaukie, 97222, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://bobsredmill.com
658/1000Weak

Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods produces more than 400 products, including a full line of certified gluten free products and an extensive line of certified organic products. With a wide variety of whole grain products, from flours and hot cereals to baking mixes and grains...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:678
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
US Foods

US Foods

9399 W. Higgins Rd., Suite 500, Rosemont, IL, US, 60018

Last Update: 25/05/2026

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

US Foods is one of America’s great food companies and a leading foodservice distributor, partnering with approximately 300,000 restaurants and foodservice operators to help their businesses succeed. With 28,000 associates and more than 70 locations, US Foods provides ...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:24,714
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bob's Red Mill

Bob's Red Mill

-
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
US Foods

US Foods

-
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 Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bob's Red Mill in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for US Foods in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bob's Red Mill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bob's Red Mill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - US Foods (X = Date, Y = Severity)

US Foods 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...
Bob's Red Mill

Bob's Red Mill

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOB825072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOB625072525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BOB215072625
US Foods

US Foods

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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