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

Comparison Overview

Feldschlösschen Getränke AGFeldschlösschen Getränke AG
VS
Pernod RicardPernod Ricard
Feldschlösschen Getränke AG

Feldschlösschen Getränke AG

Theophil Roniger-Strasse , Rheinfelden, Aargau, 4310, CH

Last Update: 19/12/2025

View Profile

Feldschlösschen mit Hauptsitz in Rheinfelden AG ist die führende Brauerei und grösste Getränkehändlerin der Schweiz. Das Unternehmen besteht seit 1876 und beschäftigt 1200 Mitarbeitende an 21 Standorten in der ganzen Schweiz. Mit einem Sortiment von über 40 eigenen Schw...

NAICS:3121
NAICS Definition:Beverage Manufacturing
Employees:569
Subsidiaries:17
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: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pernod-ricard.com
813/1000Good

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
Feldschlösschen Getränke AG

Feldschlösschen Getränke AG

-
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 Feldschlösschen Getränke AG in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pernod Ricard in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Feldschlösschen Getränke AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Feldschlösschen Getränke AG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Feldschlösschen Getränke AG

Feldschlösschen Getränke AG

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Pernod Ricard

Pernod Ricard

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2