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

Comparison Overview

Coca-Cola FEMSACoca-Cola FEMSA
VS
PRAN-RFL GroupPRAN-RFL Group
Coca-Cola FEMSA

Coca-Cola FEMSA

undefined, Ciudad de México, undefined, undefined, MX

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
804/1000Good

The public bottler with the largest volume of sales within the Coca-Cola System, committed with the generation of economic value and social and environmental well-being.

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:60,276
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Center, 105, Middle Badda, Dhaka, BD, 1212

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pranfoods.net/
794/1000Fair

PRAN RFL Group, one of the most reputed conglomerates in Bangladesh, is in market since 1981. It started mainly with Foundry business and gradually diversified to Light Engineering, PVC Fittings, Plastics, Food and Beverage and Agro-Processing. It has it's marketing and...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:19,489
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Coca-Cola FEMSA

Coca-Cola FEMSA

-
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
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

-
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 Coca-Cola FEMSA in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for PRAN-RFL Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Coca-Cola FEMSA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coca-Cola FEMSA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - PRAN-RFL Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PRAN-RFL Group 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...
Coca-Cola FEMSA

Coca-Cola FEMSA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
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
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
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
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8