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

Comparison Overview

Butterball FoodserviceButterball Foodservice
VS
AmbevAmbev
Butterball Foodservice

Butterball Foodservice

1 Butterball Lane, Garner, North Carolina, 27529, US

Last Update: 14/05/2026

View Profile
764/1000Fair

Butterball Foodservice is committed to ensuring chefs in any operation can serve with confidence. We deliver high-quality turkey products and superior customer service, day in and day out. We strive to provide everything you need for success in your operation, from ...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ambev

Ambev

São Paulo, São Paulo, 04530-001, BR

Last Update: 29/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ambev.com.br
821/1000Good

Hey there! Welcome. Here at Ambev, there are lots of people and amazing projects beyond our labels! Let’s talk about that. We believe that having a big dream requires just the same effort as having a small one. That is why our big dream began back in the 1880s, with...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:75,042
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Butterball Foodservice

Butterball Foodservice

-
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
Ambev

Ambev

-
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 Butterball Foodservice in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Ambev in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Butterball Foodservice (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Butterball Foodservice cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Ambev 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...
Butterball Foodservice

Butterball Foodservice

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ambev

Ambev

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2