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: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.myyellow.com/
663/1000Weak

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:12,400
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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
🔒 Incident : Breach
YEL1783017117

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-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA