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

Comparison Overview

EsferaEsfera
VS
CoppelCoppel
Esfera

Esfera

Avenida Presidente Juscelino Kubitschek 2235, São Paulo, 04543-011, BR

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://esfera.com.vc
769/1000Fair

Criada em 2012, a Esfera é uma empresa do Grupo Santander que oferece aos seus clientes um universo de possibilidades. Com descontos de até 50% e diversas opções para acumular e trocar pontos, você pode comprar, viajar e aproveitar: experiências únicas, shows, vales-c...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:162
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Coppel

Coppel

República 2855 pte, Recursos Hidráulicos, Culiacan, Sinaloa, MX, 80105

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.coppel.com
804/1000Good

Coppel es una empresa mexicana con sede en la ciudad de Culiacán, que ha sido fundada en 1941. Es una cadena comercial de tiendas departamentales de ventas a través del otorgamiento de créditos con pocos requisitos, y repartos gratuitos. En la actualidad cuenta con mas ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,834
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Esfera

Esfera

-
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
Coppel

Coppel

-
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 Esfera in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coppel in 2026.

Incidents

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

Esfera 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 - Coppel (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coppel 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...
Esfera

Esfera

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Coppel

Coppel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA