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

Comparison Overview

Checkers Food ServicesCheckers Food Services
VS
AmbevAmbev
Checkers Food Services

Checkers Food Services

Corner of Old Paarl and Kruis Road, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7560, ZA

Last Update: 01/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.checkersfs.co.za
768/1000Fair

If you are looking for better prices on bigger stocks with higher quality choose Checkers Food Services. Our world-class offering for caterers and restaurateurs are specially tailored to save you time & money, improve cash flow and reduce wastage - making us a leading ...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:1,807
Subsidiaries:9
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
Checkers Food Services

Checkers Food Services

-
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 Checkers Food Services in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Ambev in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Checkers Food Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Checkers Food Services 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...
Checkers Food Services

Checkers Food Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ambev

Ambev

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9