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

Comparison Overview

First Bus LondonFirst Bus London
VS
LyftLyft
First Bus London

First Bus London

N/A

Last Update: 28/05/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Welcome to First Bus London. As one of the largest bus operators in the capital, we currently operate 82 routes across west and central London with a fleet of 982 buses, of which over 37% are now fully electric — safely transporting around 180 million passengers each y...

NAICS:485
NAICS Definition:Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Lyft

Lyft

185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA, US, 94107

Last Update: 30/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.lyft.com/
737/1000Moderate

Whether it’s an everyday commute or a journey that changes everything, Lyft is driven by our purpose: to serve and connect. In 2012, Lyft was founded as one of the first ridesharing communities in the United States. Now, millions of drivers have chosen to earn on billio...

NAICS:485
NAICS Definition:Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
Employees:27,444
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
First Bus London

First Bus London

-
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
Lyft

Lyft

-
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 Ground Passenger Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for First Bus London in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Ground Passenger Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - First Bus London (X = Date, Y = Severity)

First Bus London 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 - Lyft (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lyft 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...
First Bus London

First Bus London

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Lyft

Lyft

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ELFTEMCOUGRUAMASAMLYF1777580773

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
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