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

Comparison Overview

Guinness StorehouseGuinness Storehouse
VS
Avis Budget GroupAvis Budget Group
Guinness Storehouse

Guinness Storehouse

St James's, Dublin, County Dublin, 3, IE

Last Update: 18/01/2026

View Profile
759/1000Fair

At the Home of Guinness our purpose is simple, we exist to welcome visitors on an unforgettable journey to the heart of Guinness. Located in the heart of St. James’s Gate Brewery, the Guinness Storehouse is Ireland’s number one visitor attraction. We strive to ensure ...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:204
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

6 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, 07054, US

Last Update: 19/09/2026

View Profile
650/1000Weak

Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a leading global provider of transportation solutions, both through its Avis and Budget brands, which have more than 11,000 rental locations in approximately 180 countries around the world, and through its Zipcar brand, which is the world's le...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:18,117
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Guinness Storehouse

Guinness Storehouse

-
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
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget 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 Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Guinness Storehouse in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

Avis Budget Group has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Guinness Storehouse (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guinness Storehouse 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 - Avis Budget Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avis Budget 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...
Guinness Storehouse

Guinness Storehouse

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Avis Budget Group

Avis Budget Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI1779603892
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI337072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
AVI656072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9