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

Comparison Overview

CoppelCoppel
VS
Jewel-OscoJewel-Osco
Coppel

Coppel

República 2855 pte, Recursos Hidráulicos, Culiacan, Sinaloa, MX, 80105

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.coppel.com
804/1000Good

Coppel es una empresa mexicana con sede en la ciudad de Culiacán, que ha sido fundada en 1941. Es una cadena comercial de tiendas departamentales de ventas a través del otorgamiento de créditos con pocos requisitos, y repartos gratuitos. En la actualidad cuenta con mas ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,834
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

150 Pierce Road, Itasca, 60143, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jewelosco.com
785/1000Fair

Proudly serving our customers in the Chicagoland area since 1899, Jewel-Osco provides friendly service, quality products and great value. Jewel-Osco operates 188 stores throughout the Chicagoland area, Indiana and Iowa, which is part of a 2,200+ store operation that emp...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:11,682
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Coppel

Coppel

-
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
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

-
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 Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coppel in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jewel-Osco in 2026.

Incidents

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

Coppel 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 - Jewel-Osco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jewel-Osco 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...
Coppel

Coppel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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