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

Comparison Overview

Foodtech Innovation NetworkFoodtech Innovation Network
VS
Louis Dreyfus CompanyLouis Dreyfus Company
Foodtech Innovation Network

Foodtech Innovation Network

Scheeletorget 1, Lund, 223 81, SE

Last Update: 26/01/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

Foodtech Innovation Network represents a community of more than 100 members aspiring to create a healthy, tasty and sustainable food system. Standing side by side with entrepreneurs, the food industry, the innovation system and the public sector we increase innovation p...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Louis Dreyfus Company

Louis Dreyfus Company

Westblaak 92, Rotterdam, 3012 KM, NL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ldc.com
762/1000Fair

Louis Dreyfus Company is a leading merchant and processor of agricultural goods. We leverage our global reach and extensive asset network to serve our customers and consumers around the world, delivering the right products to the right location, at the right time – safe...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:13,107
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Foodtech Innovation Network

Foodtech Innovation Network

-
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
Louis Dreyfus Company

Louis Dreyfus Company

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Foodtech Innovation Network in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Louis Dreyfus Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Foodtech Innovation Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Foodtech Innovation Network 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 - Louis Dreyfus Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Louis Dreyfus Company 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...
Foodtech Innovation Network

Foodtech Innovation Network

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Louis Dreyfus Company

Louis Dreyfus Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRA1021410090425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8