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

Comparison Overview

LF LogisticsLF Logistics
VS
YellowYellow
LF Logistics

LF Logistics

14/F LiFung Centre, 2 On Ping Street, Shatin, Hong Kong, HK, HK

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

At LF Logistics, you knew us as your omnichannel logistics experts. At Maersk, we offer you that and more; we’re on a journey to becoming the integrated end-to-end logistics partner, helping you bring ease and simplicity to your supply chain. Our customers lie at the he...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:1,527
Subsidiaries:17
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
LF Logistics

LF Logistics

-
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 LF Logistics in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yellow in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - LF Logistics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LF Logistics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
LF Logistics

LF Logistics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Yellow

Yellow

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12814
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Comfast CF-WR631AX V3 up to 2.7.0.8. This issue affects the function system of the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?section=ping_config of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument destination causes os command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
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-2026-12813
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in activepieces up to 0.83.0. This vulnerability affects the function handleUrlFile in the library packages/server/engine/src/lib/variables/processors/file.ts of the component File URL Handler. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
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-2026-12812
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Radware Cyber Controller up to 10.11.0. This affects an unknown part of the component HTML Report Generation. The manipulation leads to HTML injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-12811
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in kortix-ai suna up to 0.8.38. Affected by this issue is the function router.replace/router.push of the file apps/frontend/src/app/auth/page.tsx of the component Auth Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument returnURL can lead to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 0.8.39 can resolve this issue. This patch is called f5dec7aa0c1b8fa0125938f292c0f2430ca75f6c. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The researcher explains: "The issue was fixed in v0.8.39 without notifying the wider user base via a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12810
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Edimax BR-6478AC V2 1.23. Affected by this vulnerability is the function mp of the file /goform/mp of the component POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument command results in command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
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