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

Comparison Overview

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.
VS
AcostaAcosta
Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Büyükdere Caddesi, Esentepe, 34394, TR

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.kanyonyonetim.com
768/1000Fair

KANYON YÖNETİM İŞLETİM VE PAZARLAMA A.Ş. Kanyon Alışveriş Merkezi’ni yönetmek üzere kurulmuş olan Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş., bu konudaki başarısının ardından ortakların diğer gayrimenkul projelerini de yönetmeye başlamıştır. Bunların arasında Eczacıbaşı’...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:73
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Acosta

Acosta

6651 Gate Pkwy, Jacksonville, 32256, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.acosta.com
791/1000Fair

Acosta brings simplicity to retail sales. We act as a catalyst to boldly connect brands, retailers and consumers, fueling growth and building long-term value throughout North America and Europe. We are deeply embedded in every corner of the retail industry, strengtheni...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:13,177
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

-
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
Acosta

Acosta

-
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 Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş. 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 - Acosta (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acosta 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...
Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Kanyon Yönetim İşletim ve Pazarlama A.Ş.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Acosta

Acosta

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA