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

Comparison Overview

IFT Food Packaging DivisionIFT Food Packaging Division
VS
JBSJBS
IFT Food Packaging Division

IFT Food Packaging Division

Chicago, US

Last Update: 23/11/2025

View Profile

Join colleagues with expertise and interest in food packaging technologies. Discuss new developments affecting the quality, efficiency, and sustainability of food packaging materials and processes.

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
JBS

JBS

Avenida Marginal Direita do Tietê, 500, São Paulo, 05118-100, BR

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://jbs.com.br
660/1000Weak

Na JBS, a gente alimenta um futuro melhor. Tudo começou com uma pequena porta de um açougue, há mais de 70 anos. E, daquela porta, surgiram muitas outras. Foi acreditando em coisas simples, em fazer sempre melhor, contando com o trabalho de muita gente e abrindo portas...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:84,525
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IFT Food Packaging Division

IFT Food Packaging Division

-
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
JBS

JBS

-
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 IFT Food Packaging Division in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for JBS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - IFT Food Packaging Division (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IFT Food Packaging Division cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - JBS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JBS 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...
IFT Food Packaging Division

IFT Food Packaging Division

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
JBS

JBS

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KAS903062325
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JBS217031425
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JBS1780944727

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8