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

Comparison Overview

CJ Foods VietnamCJ Foods Vietnam
VS
SyscoSysco
CJ Foods Vietnam

CJ Foods Vietnam

CJ Building 2-4-6 Bis Le Thanh Ton, Ben Nghe Ward, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, VN

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://cjfoods.com
765/1000Fair

Established in 1953 as the first sugar manufacturer in Korea and CJ Cheiljedang has been leading Korea's food industry for over 60 years. It spreads the excellence of Korean flavors to every corner of the world with K-Food, a cuisine that satisfies local tastes with a t...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:287
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sysco

Sysco

1390 Enclave Parkway, Houston, 77079, US

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.sysco.com
686/1000Weak

Sysco is the global leader in selling, marketing and distributing food and related products to customers who prepare meals away from home. This includes restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, lodging establishments, entertainment venues, and more. Sysco ope...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:32,467
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CJ Foods Vietnam

CJ Foods Vietnam

-
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
Sysco

Sysco

-
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 CJ Foods Vietnam in 2026.

Incidents

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

Sysco has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

CJ Foods Vietnam cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Sysco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
CJ Foods Vietnam

CJ Foods Vietnam

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sysco

Sysco

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SYS1782671069
🔒 Incident : Breach
SYS5792657090725
🔒 Incident : Breach
SYS222728523

FAQ

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