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

Comparison Overview

CMA CGMCMA CGM
VS
Brink’s IncBrink’s Inc
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

4, Quai d'arenc, Marseille, 13002, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cma-cgm.com
766/1000Fair

The CMA CGM Group is a global player in sea, land, air and logistics solutions, true to its corporate Purpose, "We imagine better ways to serve a world in motion". Present in 177 countries, it employs 160,000 people, of which nearly 6,000 in Marseilles where its head o...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:30,339
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
Brink’s Inc

Brink’s Inc

1801 Bayberry Ct, Richmond, 23226, US

Last Update: 14/03/2026

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

The Brink’s Company (NYSE:BCO) is a leading global provider of cash and valuables management, digital retail solutions (DRS), and ATM managed services (AMS). Our customers include financial institutions, retailers, government agencies, mints, jewelers and other commerci...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:10,590
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

-
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
Brink’s Inc

Brink’s 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CMA CGM in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

Brink’s Inc has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - CMA CGM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CMA CGM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Brink’s Inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brink’s Inc 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...
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CMA330092125
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CMA642092025
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CMA840092125
Brink’s Inc

Brink’s Inc

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UK-1785709734

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-45537
SUMMARY

OpenSIPS is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server implementation. In versions prior to 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1, the construct_uri() function concatenates multiple URI components (protocol, username, domain, port, params) into a fixed 1024-byte global BSS buffer without any bounds checking. When a routing script calls construct_uri() with an attacker-controlled username, a combined component length exceeding 1024 bytes overflows the buffer, corrupting adjacent global data with attacker-controlled content. The overflow reaches disable_503_translation, a global flag controlling SIP 503 response handling, allowing an attacker to deterministically set the flag via the URI username and alter the server's routing behavior for subsequent messages. Because the same buffer is shared with contact_builder(), the overflow also corrupts that function's data, and without a memory sanitizer the adjacent globals are silently overwritten on every request containing a long username. This issue has been fixed in versions 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
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-2026-18819
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-18818
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Ehco1996 django-sspanel up to 2023.12.26. This affects the function TicketDetailView of the file apps/sspanel/views.py of the component Support Ticket Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-70620
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit 87babb5 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows admin-privileged attackers to direct the server to probe internal network resources by supplying arbitrary URLs to the embedding endpoint configuration without scheme, host, IP range, or DNS rebind validation. Attackers can submit loopback addresses, RFC 1918 ranges, or link-local addresses through the embedding endpoint API to partially read responses from cloud instance metadata services, internal APIs, and other hosts reachable from the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-70619
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit bf325f6 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated non-admin users to manage server-wide embedding backend configuration by invoking endpoint management routes that verify session authentication but omit the admin authorization guard. Attackers can supply an attacker-controlled URL to overwrite the embedding backend persisted in the endpoint configuration file and process environment, causing all subsequent embedding operations including chat messages, RAG queries, memory entries, and vault text to be transmitted in plaintext to the attacker-controlled destination, or delete the endpoint configuration to deny embedding service to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8