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

Comparison Overview

E.LeclercE.Leclerc
VS
Giant Eagle, Inc.Giant Eagle, Inc.
E.Leclerc

E.Leclerc

26 quai Marcel Boyer, Ivry sur Seine, 94200 , FR

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.e.leclerc
792/1000Fair

Depuis plus de 70 ans, E.Leclerc poursuit un objectif : démocratiser la consommation, c'est l'expression de son utilité sociale. Cet engagement au service du plus grand nombre doit permettre à chacun d'accéder aux produits et services dont il a besoin ou envie, au quoti...

NAICS:44511
NAICS Definition:Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
Employees:43,930
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Giant Eagle, Inc.

Giant Eagle, Inc.

700 Cranberry Woods Dr, Cranberry Township, 16066, US

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://jobs.gianteagle.com/
778/1000Fair

Giant Eagle strives to be a best place to work in the eyes of the nearly 36,000 individuals who work in our stores, pharmacies, warehouses and in our corporate offices. At Giant Eagle, you'll have the opportunity to develop a real career with countless opportunities for...

NAICS:44511
NAICS Definition:Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
Employees:14,276
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
E.Leclerc

E.Leclerc

-
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
Giant Eagle, Inc.

Giant Eagle, Inc.

-
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 Groceries Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for E.Leclerc in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Groceries Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Giant Eagle, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - E.Leclerc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E.Leclerc 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 - Giant Eagle, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Giant Eagle, Inc. 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...
E.Leclerc

E.Leclerc

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Giant Eagle, Inc.

Giant Eagle, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8