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 ConsolidatedCoca-Cola Consolidated
VS
Carlsberg GroupCarlsberg Group
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

4100 Coca-Cola Plaza, Charlotte, 28211, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
795/1000Fair

Coca-Cola Consolidated is the largest Coca-Cola bottler in the United States. Our Purpose is to honor God in all we do, serve others, pursue excellence, and grow profitably. For over 120 years, we have been deeply committed to the consumers, customers, and communities w...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:13,461
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Carlsberg Group

Carlsberg Group

J.C. Jacobsens Gade, København V, Hovedstaden, DK, 1799

Last Update: 13/07/2026

View Profile
794/1000Fair

This is the official LinkedIn channel of the Carlsberg Group. The Carlsberg Group was established in 1847 by brewer J.C. Jacobsen. J.C. Jacobsen was a true renaissance man. A believer in quality, research and serving the community, he shared his knowledge with fellow b...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:16,253
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

-
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
Carlsberg Group

Carlsberg 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 Consolidated in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Carlsberg Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Coca-Cola Consolidated 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 - Carlsberg Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carlsberg Group 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...
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Carlsberg Group

Carlsberg Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CARCANWHI1768827977

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8