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

Comparison Overview

Costa CoffeeCosta Coffee
VS
Lidl in GermanyLidl in Germany
Costa Coffee

Costa Coffee

1A Wimpole St, London, W1G 0EA, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.costa.co.uk
799/1000Fair

At Costa Coffee, we’ve been crafting with heart and changing the coffee game since 1971. Now part of The Coca-Cola Company, we proudly operate in over 50 countries, and we’re still growing! And we’re much more than our beloved stores. Consumers all over the world can no...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:18,458
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lidl in Germany

Lidl in Germany

Bonfelder Straße 2, Bad Wimpfen, Baden-Württemberg, DE, 74206

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://qr.lidl.com/aephaeJ6
808/1000Good

Anpacker. Durchstarter. Möglichmacher. Alle reden vom Kundenfokus, Customer first, dem Kunden als König. Wir finden, das ist zu kurz gedacht und würden es so formulieren: Der Mensch ist Dreh- und Angelpunkt unseres Erfolgs. Dazu gehört neben einer Kunden- auch die Mita...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:84,511
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Costa Coffee

Costa Coffee

-
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
Lidl in Germany

Lidl in Germany

-
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 Costa Coffee in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lidl in Germany in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Costa Coffee (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Costa Coffee 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 - Lidl in Germany (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lidl in Germany 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...
Costa Coffee

Costa Coffee

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lidl in Germany

Lidl in Germany

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8