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

Comparison Overview

Lackmann Culinary ServicesLackmann Culinary Services
VS
PRAN-RFL GroupPRAN-RFL Group
Lackmann Culinary Services

Lackmann Culinary Services

N/A

Last Update: 09/01/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.lackmann.com/
828/1000Good

Lackmann Culinary Services has been a successful foodservice company since 1964 and prides itself on treating each customer like family. We look to set the standard in the industry by providing customers with the highest level of service and quality, and we are continuo...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:82
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Center, 105, Middle Badda, Dhaka, BD, 1212

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pranfoods.net/
794/1000Fair

PRAN RFL Group, one of the most reputed conglomerates in Bangladesh, is in market since 1981. It started mainly with Foundry business and gradually diversified to Light Engineering, PVC Fittings, Plastics, Food and Beverage and Agro-Processing. It has it's marketing and...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:19,489
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lackmann Culinary Services

Lackmann Culinary Services

-
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
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

-
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 Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lackmann Culinary Services in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for PRAN-RFL Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Lackmann Culinary Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lackmann Culinary Services 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 - PRAN-RFL Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PRAN-RFL Group 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...
Lackmann Culinary Services

Lackmann Culinary Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9