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

Comparison Overview

KP SnacksKP Snacks
VS
CargillCargill
KP Snacks

KP Snacks

5th Floor, The Urban Building, Slough, SL1 2BE, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.kpsnacks.com
722/1000Moderate

KP Snacks is home to some of the most iconic British snack brands and also produces all kinds of snacks for the UK’s retailers. We have been creating happy snacking moments for decades, creating exciting snack ideas to meet the changing tastes and expectations of our c...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:1,137
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Cargill

Cargill

15407 McGinty Rd W, Wayzata, 55391, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.cargill.com
817/1000Good

Cargill is a family company committed to nourishing the world in a safe, responsible and sustainable way. With over 158 years of experience, we sit at the heart of the supply chain, partnering with producers and customers to source, make and deliver products that are vi...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:69,142
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
KP Snacks

KP Snacks

-
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
Cargill

Cargill

-
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 KP Snacks in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cargill in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - KP Snacks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

KP Snacks cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Cargill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
KP Snacks

KP Snacks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KPS15519222
Cargill

Cargill

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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