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

Comparison Overview

Florida Pest ControlFlorida Pest Control
VS
Rover.comRover.com
Florida Pest Control

Florida Pest Control

116 NW 16th Ave, Gainesville, Florida, US

Last Update: 17/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.flapest.com
775/1000Fair

When it comes to living and working comfortably, there is no room for pests. At Florida Pest Control, our job is simple: provide you with world-class service so you can live pest-FREE. That starts with a commitment to protecting your home or business. Founded in 1949, F...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:216
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rover.com

Rover.com

720 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rover.com
792/1000Fair

At Rover, everyone has ownership of their work and the opportunity to make a true impact. We believe that being diverse and inclusive is key to our success and encourage every employee to share their unique perspective while being their true self. We believe everyone ...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:11,132
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Florida Pest Control

Florida Pest Control

-
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
Rover.com

Rover.com

-
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 Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Florida Pest Control in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rover.com in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Florida Pest Control (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Florida Pest Control cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Rover.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rover.com 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...
Florida Pest Control

Florida Pest Control

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rover.com

Rover.com

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA