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

Comparison Overview

DexterraDexterra
VS
SodexoSodexo
Dexterra

Dexterra

5925 Airport Rd, Mississauga, L4V 1W1, CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://dexterra.com/
761/1000Fair

We’ve been here, servicing our clients, for 80 years. As a North American support services provider, we enable our clients to reach their goals and elevate performance. From facilities management, food services, workforce accommodations, access solutions, and forestry...

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:502
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sodexo

Sodexo

255 quai de la bataille de Stalingrad, 92866 Issy les Moulineaux Cedex 9, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sodexo.com/
773/1000Fair

Founded in Marseille in 1966 by Pierre Bellon, Sodexo is the leader in Food and Services, shaping better everyday experiences at every moment in life: work, heal, learn and play. The Group stands out for its independence, its founding family shareholding and its respons...

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:94,488
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Dexterra

Dexterra

-
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
Sodexo

Sodexo

-
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 Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dexterra in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sodexo in 2026.

Incidents

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

Dexterra cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Sodexo 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...
Dexterra

Dexterra

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sodexo

Sodexo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SOD222715622

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10681
SUMMARY

In Zephyr's userspace dynamic-objects subsystem, thread_idx_alloc() in kernel/userspace/userspace.c allocated a new thread permission index from the global _thread_idx_map[] bitmap without holding lists_lock. On SMP systems, two user-mode threads invoking the k_object_alloc(K_OBJ_THREAD) syscall concurrently can both observe the same low free bit, perform the same non-atomic RMW to clear it, and return the identical tidx. The two newly created K_OBJ_THREAD objects are then assigned the same thread_id, so the two user threads alias a single bit position in every kernel object's perms[] bitfield: any subsequent grant of access on a kernel object to one thread is implicitly a grant to the other, defeating userspace ACL isolation. A secondary lost-update window between the unlocked &=~BIT() in alloc and the locked |= BIT() in thread_idx_free() can also leak entries from the thread-index pool. The defect is reachable from any user-mode thread via the unrestricted __syscall k_object_alloc and is gated on CONFIG_USERSPACE, CONFIG_DYNAMIC_OBJECTS, and CONFIG_SMP. The flaw was introduced when the per-thread permission index was added in 2018 and is present in every release up to and including v4.4.0. Fixed by holding lists_lock across the bitmap RMW and the permissions clear (and inlining the obj_list traversal that previously took the lock itself).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-66013
SUMMARY

OpenRemote before 1.26.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the console registration API that allows unauthenticated attackers to update existing console assets by supplying a known asset identifier. Attackers can overwrite push notification tokens and console metadata without authentication or ownership validation, redirecting notifications or denying delivery to legitimate consoles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-66012
SUMMARY

SiYuan before v3.7.2 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the POST /mcp kernel endpoint, which is gated only by a general auth check (model.CheckAuth) with no admin-role or read-only enforcement. This exposes 31 MCP tools, including a file tool with list/read/write/delete/rename/copy actions across the entire workspace. When the Publish server is enabled in anonymous mode (Conf.Publish.Enable=true and Conf.Publish.Auth.Enable=false), the Publish reverse proxy attaches an anonymous RoleReader JWT to proxied requests, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to reach /mcp. The attacker can read conf/conf.json to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey in plaintext, write arbitrary files in the workspace, and plant a plugin into data/plugins/ that executes with nodeIntegration:true and no contextIsolation on the next desktop launch, leading to administrator takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-66011
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-27 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the magick command-line interface when invalid options are provided. Attackers can trigger memory exhaustion by repeatedly supplying malformed command-line arguments to consume system resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-64529
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: qat - remove unused character device and IOCTLs The QAT driver exposes a character device (qat_adf_ctl) with IOCTLs for device configuration, start, stop, status query and enumeration. These IOCTLs are not part of any public uAPI header and have no known in-tree or out-of-tree users. Device lifecycle is already managed via sysfs. The ioctl interface also increases the attack surface and is the subject of a number of bug reports. Remove the character device, the IOCTL definitions, and the related data structures (adf_dev_status_info, adf_user_cfg_key_val, adf_user_cfg_section, adf_user_cfg_ctl_data). Drop the now-unused adf_cfg_user.h header and strip adf_ctl_drv.c down to the minimal module_init/module_exit hooks for workqueue, AER, and crypto/compression algorithm registration. Clean up leftover dead code that was only reachable from the removed IOCTL paths: adf_cfg_del_all(), adf_devmgr_verify_id(), adf_devmgr_get_num_dev(), adf_devmgr_get_dev_by_id(), adf_get_vf_real_id() and the unused ADF_CFG macros. Additionally, drop the entry associated to QAT IOCTLs in ioctl-number.rst.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA