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

Comparison Overview

CommunautoCommunauto
VS
Great Clips Inc.Great Clips Inc.
Communauto

Communauto

1117, rue Sainte Catherine Ouest, Montréal, H3B, CA

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.communauto.com/
690/1000Weak

Fondée à Québec en 1994, Communauto est le plus ancien service d’autopartage en Amérique du Nord et celui qui dessert le plus grand nombre de communautés au Canada. Avec une flotte de près de 3000 véhicules, la société dessert 13 villes canadiennes (Edmonton, la région ...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:148
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Great Clips Inc.

Great Clips Inc.

4400 W. 78th St., Minneapolis, 55435, US

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://jobs.greatclips.com/
789/1000Fair

Established in Minneapolis in 1982, Great Clips has grown to be the world's largest and fastest growing salon brand. There are more than 4,400 salons throughout the United States and Canada -- all of them owned by franchisees. Visit us at www.greatclips.com Employment ...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:12,810
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Communauto

Communauto

-
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
Great Clips Inc.

Great Clips 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 Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Communauto has 21.26% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Great Clips Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

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

Communauto cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Great Clips Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Clips Inc. 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...
Communauto

Communauto

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COM1789483063
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
COM105724522
Great Clips Inc.

Great Clips Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9