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

Comparison Overview

FOOD PLUS S.A.FOOD PLUS S.A.
VS
Grupo BimboGrupo Bimbo
FOOD PLUS S.A.

FOOD PLUS S.A.

250-254 Kifisias Avenue, Chalandri, Athens, 15231, GR

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.foodplus.gr
762/1000Fair

Food Plus S.A. is company with more than 30 years of experience in the food industry and the franchisee of KFC in the Greek market. Currently owns and operates 21 KFC restaurants in Athens and Thessaloniki and employs more than 500 people in its restaurants and headquar...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:121
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Grupo Bimbo

Grupo Bimbo

MX

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://grupobimbo.com
797/1000Fair

Grupo Bimbo es la empresa líder en panificación y un jugador relevante en snacks. Hornea +9,000 productos, distribuyéndolos a través de +3.5 millones de puntos de venta con +54,000 rutas. Grupo Bimbo tiene +153,000 colaboradores, +1,500 centros de ventas estratégicame...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:45,806
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FOOD PLUS S.A.

FOOD PLUS S.A.

-
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
Grupo Bimbo

Grupo Bimbo

-
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 Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FOOD PLUS S.A. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grupo Bimbo in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - FOOD PLUS S.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FOOD PLUS S.A. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Grupo Bimbo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grupo Bimbo 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...
FOOD PLUS S.A.

FOOD PLUS S.A.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Grupo Bimbo

Grupo Bimbo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2