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

Comparison Overview

DFS Group LimitedDFS Group Limited
VS
Jewel-OscoJewel-Osco
DFS Group Limited

DFS Group Limited

Hong Kong, HK

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.dfs.com
782/1000Fair

DFS Group is the leading luxury travel retailer. Established in Hong Kong in 1960, DFS Group continues to be a pioneer in global luxury travel retail, offering its customers a carefully curated selection of exceptional products from the most desired brands. Its stores a...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:3,075
Subsidiaries:2
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
DFS Group Limited

DFS Group Limited

-
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 DFS Group Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jewel-Osco in 2026.

Incidents

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

DFS Group Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
DFS Group Limited

DFS Group Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Jewel-Osco

Jewel-Osco

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8