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

Comparison Overview

L.A. DarlingL.A. Darling
VS
SodimacSodimac
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

1401 Hwy 49 B, Paragould, 72450, US

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ladarling.com
770/1000Fair

Since 1897, L.A. Darling has been at the forefront of designing and manufacturing custom retail displays and fixtures that enhance shopper engagement and drive profitability. Our comprehensive services include rapid prototyping, efficient production, and installation, t...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:209
Subsidiaries:74
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sodimac

Sodimac

Chile, Brasil, Perú, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, México, CL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
812/1000Good

#SomosUnEquipo Te invitamos a conocer y a ser parte de nuestra Casa, un lugar donde la innovación, la sostenibilidad y la diversidad se viven día a día. Con más de 60 años de trayectoria y presencia en Chile, Perú, Colombia, Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay y México, nuestra ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:23,339
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

-
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
Sodimac

Sodimac

-
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 L.A. Darling in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sodimac in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - L.A. Darling (X = Date, Y = Severity)

L.A. Darling 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 - Sodimac (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sodimac 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...
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sodimac

Sodimac

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2