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

Comparison Overview

Elmhurst® 1925Elmhurst® 1925
VS
Krispy KremeKrispy Kreme
Elmhurst® 1925

Elmhurst® 1925

1200 Maple Rd, Elmhurst 1925, Elma, New York, US, 14059

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://elmhurst1925.com/
671/1000Weak

Elmhurst® is the fastest growing plant-based beverage company, crafting simple, nutritious and delicious plant-based dairy alternatives. All varieties are created through a unique HydroRelease™ method, using water to harness the nutritional content of raw grains, nuts,...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:42
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Krispy Kreme

Krispy Kreme

2116 Hawkins St, Charlotte, North Carolina, US, 28203

Last Update: 27/05/2026

View Profile
350/1000Critical

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Krispy Kreme is one of the most beloved and well-known sweet treat brands in the world. Our iconic Original Glazed® doughnut is universally recognized for its hot-off-the-line, melt-in-your-mouth experience. Krispy Kreme operates in mor...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:10,305
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Elmhurst® 1925

Elmhurst® 1925

-
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
Krispy Kreme

Krispy Kreme

-
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 Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Elmhurst® 1925 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Krispy Kreme has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Elmhurst® 1925 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Elmhurst® 1925 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Krispy Kreme (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Krispy Kreme 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...
Elmhurst® 1925

Elmhurst® 1925

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ELM431090725
Krispy Kreme

Krispy Kreme

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KRI1779668812
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KRI1768390561
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
KRI5093650100125

FAQ

Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 company and Krispy Kreme company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 and Krispy Kreme, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 and Krispy Kreme, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Elmhurst® 1925 or Krispy Kreme ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Elmhurst® 1925 or Krispy Kreme ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 and Krispy Kreme, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Elmhurst® 1925 and Krispy Kreme, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8