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

Comparison Overview

CROSSMARKCROSSMARK
VS
Acosta GroupAcosta Group
CROSSMARK

CROSSMARK

1921 State Highway 121, Lewisville, 75056, US

Last Update: 16/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.crossmark.com
713/1000Moderate

Crossmark offers service-based solutions to help your brand grow in store and online. With the sales and marketing expertise at our disposal, we can provide you with the ultimate end-to-end service. That means better decision making, actionable insights, unearthing exci...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:9,608
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Acosta Group

Acosta Group

6600 Corporate Center Pkwy, Jacksonville, 32216, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.acosta.group/
774/1000Fair

Acosta Group fuses storied expertise, unmatched connectivity and advanced insight to accelerate brand growth – everywhere you sell. Our collective of the most trusted retail, marketing and foodservice agencies is reimagining how people connect with brands at every point...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:38,367
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CROSSMARK

CROSSMARK

-
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
Acosta Group

Acosta 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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CROSSMARK in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

CROSSMARK cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Acosta Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acosta 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...
CROSSMARK

CROSSMARK

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARCRO1784212096
🔒 Incident : Breach
CRO418072825
Acosta Group

Acosta Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8