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

Comparison Overview

Bristol FarmsBristol Farms
VS
CoopCoop
Bristol Farms

Bristol Farms

915 E Carson St, Carson, 90745, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bristolfarms.com
765/1000Fair

Since opening our first market in Rolling Hills, CA, Bristol Farms has brought people together around a love for cooking and sharing delicious food. We have worked to create a community of curious foodies - people who enjoyed exploring the aisles and discovering new and...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:693
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Coop

Coop

Thiersteinerallee 14, Basel, 4002, CH

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile

Coop has been an integral part of Switzerland for over 150 years and acts with a sense of responsibility for its people, its regions and its ecosystems. As a retailer, wholesaler and producer, we deliver quality and are proud of our numerous brands and products. The div...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:23,916
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bristol Farms

Bristol Farms

-
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
Coop

Coop

-
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 Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bristol Farms in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coop in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bristol Farms (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bristol Farms cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Coop 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...
Bristol Farms

Bristol Farms

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRI540072725
Coop

Coop

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA