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

Comparison Overview

Food4Less/FoodsCoFood4Less/FoodsCo
VS
Frasers GroupFrasers Group
Food4Less/FoodsCo

Food4Less/FoodsCo

P.O. Box 54143, Los Angeles, 90054, US

Last Update: 08/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.food4less.com
774/1000Fair

Food 4 Less is dedicated to our purpose: to Feed the Human Spirit ™. Food 4 Less/Foods Co is more than 11,000 associates serving customers in 129 price-impact, warehouse-format supermarkets under the banners Food 4 Less in Southern California, Illinois and Indiana, and ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:1,123
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Frasers Group

Frasers Group

Academy House, 36 Poland Street, London , W1F 7LU, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://frasers.group
782/1000Fair

Frasers Group started as a small store in Maidenhead in 1982 and from there, grew to become a global powerhouse. We are now a collection of the world’s most iconic brands including Sports Direct, Flannels, GAME, Jack Wills, Sofa.com, Evans Cycles, USC, and Everlast. W...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:16,386
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Food4Less/FoodsCo

Food4Less/FoodsCo

-
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
Frasers Group

Frasers Group

-
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 Food4Less/FoodsCo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Frasers Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Food4Less/FoodsCo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Food4Less/FoodsCo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Frasers Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Frasers Group 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...
Food4Less/FoodsCo

Food4Less/FoodsCo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Frasers Group

Frasers Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo company and Frasers Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo and Frasers Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo and Frasers Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Food4Less/FoodsCo or Frasers Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Food4Less/FoodsCo or Frasers Group ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo and Frasers Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Food4Less/FoodsCo and Frasers Group, 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