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

Comparison Overview

Central Freight Lines, Inc.Central Freight Lines, Inc.
VS
SBB CFF FFSSBB CFF FFS
Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Central Freight Lines, Inc.

5601 West Waco Drive, Waco, 76710, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Central Freight Lines has a rich history of providing transportation to emerging businesses and Fortune 500 industry leaders since 1925. Central's Corporate Office has been located in Waco, Texas for over 95 years. Central Freight Lines has sustainability, financial st...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:618
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
SBB CFF FFS

SBB CFF FFS

Hilfikerstrasse 1, Bern, 3000, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.sbb.ch/jobs
783/1000Fair

We shape the mobility of the future – simple, personal, connected. SBB’s comprehensive service contract allows us to offer a wide range of exciting careers in all areas of business. Thanks to this variety, many different career paths are possible, which we support th...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:17,994
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Central Freight Lines, 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
SBB CFF FFS

SBB CFF FFS

-
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 Transportation/Trucking/Railroad Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Central Freight Lines, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation/Trucking/Railroad Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SBB CFF FFS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Central Freight Lines, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Central Freight Lines, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - SBB CFF FFS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SBB CFF FFS 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...
Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CEN01819222
SBB CFF FFS

SBB CFF FFS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1