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

Comparison Overview

EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANYEQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
VS
Pernod RicardPernod Ricard
EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

Casablanca, Casablanca, MA

Last Update: 17/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eccbc.com
781/1000Fair

ECCBC is a bottler of The Coca-Cola Company across North and West Africa, where it produces, commercializes and distributes a range of beverages such as soft drinks, juices, water, energy drinks, malt and beer. ECCBC’s story began in 1989 in Equatorial Guinea, before ...

NAICS:3121
NAICS Definition:Beverage Manufacturing
Employees:1,955
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Pernod Ricard

Pernod Ricard

5 cour Paul Ricard, Paris, 75008, FR

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pernod-ricard.com
812/1000Good

Pernod Ricard is a convivial, responsible and successful global wine and spirits group and the #1 premium spirits organisation in the world. The Group represents 240 premium brands available in more than 160 countries. We are 18,500 exceptionally talented people worldwi...

NAICS:3121
NAICS Definition:Beverage Manufacturing
Employees:19,364
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

-
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
Pernod Ricard

Pernod Ricard

-
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 Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pernod Ricard in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 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 - Pernod Ricard (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pernod Ricard 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...
EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

EQUATORIAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Pernod Ricard

Pernod Ricard

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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