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
StarbucksStarbucks
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
Starbucks

Starbucks

2401 Utah Ave S, Seattle, 98134, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
677/1000Weak

At Starbucks, we like to say that we are not in the coffee business serving people, but in the people business serving coffee. Here, our employees - who we call partners – are the heart of the Starbucks experience, and being a partner means aspiring to become part of so...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:185,106
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

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
Starbucks

Starbucks

-
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)

Starbucks has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Starbucks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Starbucks 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...
L.A. Darling

L.A. Darling

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Starbucks

Starbucks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
AMASTA1775118743
🔒 Incident : Breach
STA1773390498
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
BRO3105131112625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53646
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when a `ClientPasswordReset` record already exists for a client (from a previous unexpired reset request), subsequent calls to the `reset_password` guest API endpoint reuse the existing token instead of generating a new one. The 15-minute validity window is anchored to the first request's `created_at` timestamp, not the time of the most recent email. An attacker who obtained the original reset link remains able to use it even after the victim requests a new reset, because the original token is never invalidated or rotated. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Configure a reverse proxy (e.g., Nginx, Apache, Cloudflare) to apply per-IP rate limiting to the `/client/reset-password` endpoint to minimize the window of opportunity, and/or manually clear expired `client_password_reset` records from the database after a client reports a suspected compromise.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/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-2026-53645
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow a low-privileged staff account to grant arbitrary module permissions to itself through the admin API, resulting in persistent privilege escalation. A staff user that only has `staff.create_and_edit_staff` can call `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` targeting their own account and write any permission structure, bypassing the intended role-based access control boundary. Version 0.8.0 patches the issue. Some workarounds are available. Restrict the `staff.create_and_edit_staff` permission to only highly trusted staff members and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/admin/staff/permissions_update` to specific trusted roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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-2026-53644
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions 0.5.3 through 0.7.2 allow authenticated clients to both read and reset API key service secrets for orders that are no longer in an `active` state (e.g., `suspended`, `canceled`). The root cause is missing order-state validation in two client API endpoints, despite an `isActive()` helper already existing in the `Serviceapikey` module and the frontend UI correctly gating access on `order.status == 'active'`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. If the `Serviceapikey` module is not needed, uninstall it to remove the affected endpoints. One may also use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to `/api/client/order/service` and `/api/client/serviceapikey/reset` based on application-level order-state logic.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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-2026-53643
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. Versions prior to 0.8.0 allow low-privileged staff accounts to perform unauthorized actions via admin API endpoints. The root cause is a combination of the `can_always_access` module flag (which grants all staff access to certain modules) and insufficient permission checks or unsafe parameter handling on individual endpoints. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. Some workarounds are available. Restrict staff accounts to only those who need access to sensitive settings and/or use a reverse proxy or WAF to restrict access to the affected endpoints to trusted IP addresses or higher-privilege roles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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-2026-53642
SUMMARY

FOSSBilling is a free, open-source billing and client management system. In versions 0.5.6 through 0.7.2, when the "Require Email Confirmation" setting is enabled, a logged-in client with an unverified email address (`email_approved = 0`) can access all client-area pages (e.g. `/client/balance`, `/client/order/list`, `/client/invoice`) and read real account data, including wallet balances and transaction history. The API-side enforcement correctly restricts unverified clients to only profile-related endpoints, but the page-side enforcement is overly permissive, allowing any request whose path starts with `/client`. Version 0.8.0 contains a fix. No known workarounds that don't involve modifying the source code are available.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-06
UPDATED
Date2026-07-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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