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

Comparison Overview

KloosterboerKloosterboer
VS
YellowYellow
Kloosterboer

Kloosterboer

Waalhaven Zuidzijde 19, Rotterdam, South Holland, 3089 JH, NL

Last Update: 22/03/2026

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

The Kloosterboer Group is a family-owned company with over 90 years of experience in the handling of temperature controlled food products, such as fish, meat, fruit, fruit juices /-concentrates, dairy and potato products. Kloosterboer develops and provides innovative an...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:202
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Yellow

Yellow

501 Commerce St. Suite, 1120, Nashville, 37203, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.myyellow.com/
744/1000Moderate

Yellow, a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Nashville, TN is one of the largest super-regional less-than-truckload (LTL) companies in North America. Nearly 100 years ago, Yellow created the LTL industry, and now it comprises four successful regional LTL companies and...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:12,446
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kloosterboer

Kloosterboer

-
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
Yellow

Yellow

-
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 Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kloosterboer in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yellow in 2026.

Incidents

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

Kloosterboer 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 - Yellow (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yellow 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...
Kloosterboer

Kloosterboer

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Yellow

Yellow

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-13512
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Databend up to 1.2.881 on HTTP. This affects the function ClientSessionManager::state_key of the file src/query/service/src/servers/http/v1/session/client_session_manager.rs of the component Tenant Handler. The manipulation leads to authorization bypass. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-13511
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in VoltAgent up to 2.1.17. Affected by this issue is the function handleGetMemoryConversation of the file packages/server-core/src/handlers/memory.handlers.ts of the component Memory REST API. Executing a manipulation of the argument conversationId can lead to improper authorization. The attack may be performed from remote. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-13510
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in SimStudioAI sim up to 0.6.92. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality in the library apps/sim/lib/core/security/deployment.ts of the component Password Protection Handler. Performing a manipulation results in use of weak hash. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack's complexity is rated as high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-13509
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in RAGapp up to 0.1.5. Affected is the function FileHandler.upload_file/FileHandler.remove_file of the file src/ragapp/backend/controllers/files.py of the component Knowledge File Handler. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-13508
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in khoj-ai khoj up to 2.0.0-beta.28. This impacts an unknown function of the file src/khoj/routers/api_chat.py of the component Conversation Sharing Handler. This manipulation of the argument conversation.agent causes incorrect authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-28
UPDATED
Date2026-06-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1