What is the official website of Crimson Wine Group ?

The official website of Crimson Wine Group is http://crimsonwinegroup.com/.

What is Crimson Wine Group's cybersecurity risk score?

Crimson Wine Group has an AI-generated cybersecurity risk score of 705 out of 1000, indicating a Moderate security posture according to Rankiteo's assessment.

How many security incidents has Crimson Wine Group experienced?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group currently holds 0 security badges, indicating that no recognized compliance certifications are currently verified for the organization.

Has Crimson Wine Group been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents ?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group has not been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents, and no incident IDs are currently listed for the organization.

Does Crimson Wine Group have SOC 2 Type 1 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group is not certified under SOC 2 Type 1.

Does Crimson Wine Group have SOC 2 Type 2 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group does not hold a SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Does Crimson Wine Group comply with GDPR ?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group is not listed as GDPR compliant.

Does Crimson Wine Group have PCI DSS certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group does not currently maintain PCI DSS compliance.

Does Crimson Wine Group comply with HIPAA ?

According to Rankiteo, Crimson Wine Group is not compliant with HIPAA regulations.

Does Crimson Wine Group have ISO 27001 certification ?

According to Rankiteo,Crimson Wine Group is not certified under ISO 27001, indicating the absence of a formally recognized information security management framework.

Which industry does Crimson Wine Group operate in ?

Crimson Wine Group operates primarily in the Wine & Spirits industry.

How many employees does Crimson Wine Group have ?

Crimson Wine Group employs approximately 103 people worldwide.

Does Crimson Wine Group own any subsidiaries ?

Crimson Wine Group presently has no subsidiaries across any sectors.

How many LinkedIn followers does Crimson Wine Group have ?

Crimson Wine Group's official LinkedIn profile has approximately 8,010 followers.

Does Crimson Wine Group have a Crunchbase profile ?

No, Crimson Wine Group does not have a profile on Crunchbase.

Does Crimson Wine Group have a LinkedIn profile ?

Yes, Crimson Wine Group maintains an official LinkedIn profile, which is actively utilized for branding and talent engagement, which can be accessed here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/crimson-wine-group.

How many cybersecurity incidents has Crimson Wine Group experienced ?

As of June 30, 2026, Rankiteo reports that Crimson Wine Group has experienced 1 cybersecurity incidents.

How many peer or competitor companies does Crimson Wine Group have ?

Crimson Wine Group has an estimated 529 peer or competitor companies worldwide.

What types of cybersecurity incidents has Crimson Wine Group faced ?

Incident Types: The types of cybersecurity incidents that have occurred include Breach.

NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop

WindowsmacOSLinux

Download

Badge your company to reduce your risk score and your cyber insurance costs!

Link verified badges to your company page to build trust with insurers and customers.

Apply now and get your badge!

Internal validation & live display

Insurers and partners see a safer profile

Faster underwriting decisions

Trusted by insurers. Chosen by leaders.

Proud contributor to the Society of Actuaries.

CWG

Boost Score +25 with badge (5 left)

705

/1000

Moderate

730

/1000

Moderate

Crimson Wine Group Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

crimsonwinegroup.com

Add Your Compliance Badge

At Crimson Wine Group, we are the guardians of 1,000 acres of pristine vineyards, iconic estates, vital forests, and wildlife habitats along the West Coast. Our success stems from the wide range of perspectives that our team brings to every single one of our wines – from vine to bottle and beyond. Our portfolio is cultivated to elevate any occasion and to simply make life better.

CWG A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Scoring History

CWG

Crimson Wine Group CyberSecurity News & History

Past Incidents

Attack Types

Entity

Type

Severity

Impact

Seen

Blog Details

Supply Chain Source

Incident Details

View

Crimson Wine Group

Breach

6/2024

CRI827072525

Loading…

A.I.

CWG Company Scoring based on AI Models

Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction

Incident Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction A

Prediction B

Prediction C

Prediction D

A.I. Risk Score Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

Loading…

Underwriter Stats for CWG

Incidents vs Wine & Spirits Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Crimson Wine Group in 2026.

Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Crimson Wine Group in 2026.

Incident Types CWG vs Wine & Spirits Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Crimson Wine Group in 2026.

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

Loading…

SUBSIDIARY

Crimson Wine Group Subsidiaries

Parent Company

CWG

Wine & Spirits

Website: http://crimsonwinegroup.com/

Company Size: 201-500 employees

No subsidiary data available for this company.

Loading…

Crimson Wine Group Similar Companies

Loading…

NEWS

Crimson Wine Group CyberSecurity News

Latest updates, reports, and threat intel affecting the global network.

March 18, 2026 07:00 AM

Crimson Wine Group 2025 Annual Report: Strategic Pillars, Vineyard Holdings, Risk Management, and Financial Performance Overview

Posted on March 18, 2026 at 10:22 pm (GMT+8). 110. Views. Share on Facebook · Share on Twitter. Crimson Wine Group, Ltd (CWGL) – 2025 Annual Report: Key...

Read Article

March 17, 2026 07:00 AM

Crimson Wine Group (CWGL) expands with $35.2M Raeburn brand deal

Crimson Wine Group's annual report highlights a $35.2M Raeburn brand acquisition, strong direct-to-consumer mix, detailed vineyard...

Read Article

February 10, 2026 08:00 AM

Crimson Wine Group buys Raeburn assets from Purple Brands

Crimson Wine Group has acquired the Raeburn wine brand from California-based wine and spirits business Purple Brands.

Read Article

February 09, 2026 08:00 AM

Major grocery-store wine brand Raeburn sold to Crimson Wine Group

Crimson Wine Group (OTCQB: CWGL) announced on February 9, 2026 that it has acquired the Raeburn wine brand from Purple Brands,...

Read Article

August 18, 2025 07:00 AM

Crimson Wine Group Posts Q2 Loss as Sales Decline Y/Y, Margins Contract

Shares of Crimson Wine Group CWGL have gained 0.7% since reporting second-quarter 2025 results, underperforming the S&P 500 index's 1.7%...

Read Article

June 30, 2025 07:00 AM

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights Berkshire Hathaway, Netflix, Toyota Motor, Crimson Wine and Cemtrex

BRK.B, NFLX, and TM headline analyst picks, with diverse strengths in insurance, streaming, and hybrid EVs despite macro headwinds.

Read Article

January 03, 2025 08:00 AM

Class-action lawsuit filed against Crimson Wine Group over Hacking Incident

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Crimson Wine Group over a hacking incident that targeted consumers' information, according to the complaint.

Read Article

December 16, 2024 09:25 PM

Crimson Wine Group Data Breach Lawsuit Investigation

Crimson Wine Group has reported a significant cybersecurity breach, with unauthorized access to its network occurring between June 26 and June 30, 2024.

Read Article

September 13, 2024 07:00 AM

Drinks industry faces cybersecurity challenges from smart manufacturing

As the beverage industry faces growing risks from automated systems, investment in cybersecurity is crucial.

Read Article

Loading…

CVE

Latest

Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

CVE-2026-8023

SUMMARY

Zephyr's HTTP server (subsys/net/lib/http) provides a static-filesystem resource type (HTTP_RESOURCE_TYPE_STATIC_FS, available when CONFIG_FILE_SYSTEM is enabled) that serves files from a configured root directory. Before this fix, both the HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 front-ends placed the raw, attacker-controlled request path into client-url_buffer (assembled in on_url() for HTTP/1 and copied verbatim from the :path pseudo-header for HTTP/2) without resolving ./.. segments. The static-FS handler then built the on-disk filename by directly concatenating the configured root with that raw URL (snprintk(fname, ..., "%s%s", static_fs_detail-fs_path, client-url_buffer) at http_server_http1.c:603 and http_server_http2.c:490) and opened it with fs_open(fname, FS_O_READ). Because the handler is reached via wildcard/leading-dir (fnmatch FNM_LEADING_DIR) or fallback resource matching, a request such as GET /<prefix/../../<file is dispatched to the handler and, after the underlying filesystem (e.g. LittleFS/FAT) resolves the .. segments, escapes the configured web root, letting an unauthenticated remote client read arbitrary readable files on the mounted volume (information disclosure). The HTTP server requires no TLS or authentication to reach this path. The fix adds http_server_remove_dot_segments(), which canonicalizes the path portion of the URL before resource lookup in both protocol handlers, neutralizing the traversal. Affects releases v4.0.0 through v4.4.0 for deployments that register a static-filesystem resource.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

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:H/I:N/A:N

Impact Score

3.6

Exploitability

3.9

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-7656

SUMMARY

The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery handlers in subsys/net/ip/ipv6_nbr.c (handle_ra_input, handle_ns_input, handle_na_input) used an incorrect boolean expression that combined the RFC 4861 validity checks with the ICMPv6 code check using the wrong operator precedence: the form was '((length/hop/source/target checks) && (icmp_hdr-code != 0))'. Because every legitimate ND message carries ICMPv6 code 0, an attacker setting code == 0 (the normal value) caused the entire predicate to evaluate false, so the packet was never dropped and all of the other checks were silently skipped. The bypassed checks include the mandatory Hop Limit == 255 verification (which proves an ND packet originated on-link and was not forwarded) and, for Router Advertisements, the requirement that the source be a link-local address, as well as multicast-target sanity checks. As a result, an adjacent on-link attacker — and, because the Hop-Limit-255 guard is bypassed, potentially a remote/off-link attacker whose packets would otherwise be rejected — can have forged Router Advertisement, Neighbor Solicitation, and Neighbor Advertisement messages accepted. A forged RA lets the attacker reconfigure the victim's default router, on-link prefixes (SLAAC), MTU, reachable/retransmit timers, and (with CONFIG_NET_IPV6_RA_RDNSS) DNS servers, while forged NS/NA enable neighbor-cache poisoning, enabling man-in-the-middle, traffic redirection, and denial of service. The flaw is an input-validation/authentication weakness rather than a memory-safety issue: the underlying packet-parsing primitives (net_pkt_get_data, net_pkt_read, net_pkt_skip) are independently bounds-safe and the validated 'length' is the true buffer length, so skipping the length check causes no out-of-bounds access. The defect has existed since the logic was introduced in 2018 and shipped in all releases through v4.4.0; it is fixed by splitting the condition so any failing check drops the packet.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)

cvss3

Base Score: 8.1

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

Impact Score

5.2

Exploitability

2.8

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-51219

SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the HighPriorityASDUQueue_hasUnconfirmedIMessages function of lib60870 v2.3.3 to v2.3.6 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted payload.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-51218

SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the TS7Worker::PerformFunctionWrite() function (/core/s7_server.cpp) of snap7 v1.4.3 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted packet.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-10648

SUMMARY

mcumgr_serial_process_frag() in subsys/mgmt/mcumgr/transport/src/serial_util.c calls net_buf_reset() on the result of smp_packet_alloc() before checking it for NULL. smp_packet_alloc() uses net_buf_alloc(K_NO_WAIT) against the shared MCUmgr packet pool (CONFIG_MCUMGR_TRANSPORT_NETBUF_COUNT, default 4), which returns NULL when the pool is exhausted. In default builds the __ASSERT_NO_MSG in net_buf_reset is a no-op, so net_buf_simple_reset writes through the NULL pointer (buf->len = 0; buf->data = buf->__buf), causing a fault/crash. The fragment data reaches this code from attacker-controlled bytes on the MCUmgr serial/UART/shell-console transports (smp_uart.c, smp_raw_uart.c, smp_shell.c), and a fresh buffer is allocated at the start of essentially every new packet. An attacker on the serial/console link can flood the transport to drive the 4-entry buffer pool to exhaustion and induce the NULL dereference, crashing the device (denial of service). The defect was introduced after the original MCUmgr rework and shipped in Zephyr v4.4.0. The fix moves the NULL check ahead of net_buf_reset.

Published

Date2026-06-29

Updated

Date2026-06-29

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)

cvss3

Base Score: 6.2

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Impact Score

3.6

Exploitability

2.5

REFERENCES

Loading…

API

Access Data Using Our API

Get company history

curl -i -X GET 'https://api.rankiteo.com/underwriter-getcompany-history?
linkedin_id=axa' -H 'apikey: YOUR_API_KEY_HERE'

Try It API Documentation Rapid

MEASURE

What Do We Measure ?

Incident

Finding

Grade

Digital Assets

Every week, Rankiteo analyzes billions of signals to give organizations a sharper, faster view of emerging risks. With deeper, more actionable intelligence at their fingertips, security teams can outpace threat actors, respond instantly to Zero-Day attacks, and dramatically shrink their risk exposure window.

These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:

Network SecurityIdentify exposed access points, detect misconfigured SSL certificates, and uncover vulnerabilities across the network infrastructure.

SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)Gain visibility into the software components used within an organization to detect vulnerabilities, manage risk, and ensure supply chain security.

CMDB (Configuration Management Database)Monitor and manage all IT assets and their configurations to ensure accurate, real-time visibility across the company's technology environment.

Threat IntelligenceLeverage real-time insights on active threats, malware campaigns, and emerging vulnerabilities to proactively defend against evolving cyberattacks.

Rankiteo

By Rankiteo

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

View on G2.com

Rankiteo is a unified scoring and risk platform that analyzes billions of signals weekly to help organizations gain faster, more actionable insights into emerging threats. Empowering teams to outpace adversaries and reduce exposure.

View latest plans →View all security reports →

MILESTONEG

Users
Love Us

Loading…