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

Comparison Overview

Logisnext UK LtdLogisnext UK Ltd
VS
ITC LimitedITC Limited
Logisnext UK Ltd

Logisnext UK Ltd

Jane Morbey Road, Thame, Oxfordshire, OX9 3RR, GB

Last Update: 13/12/2025

View Profile
759/1000Fair

Based in Thame, Oxfordshire, Logisnext is the largest of the group’s European subsidiaries with a long history of products supply dating back to 1969, when the business was known as Atlet and then became UniCarriers. Logisnext UK Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mi...

NAICS:339
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:71
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ITC Limited

ITC Limited

Virginia House, 37 J L Nehru Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, IN, 700071

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.itcportal.com
830/1000Good

ITC is one of India's foremost private sector companies with a Gross Revenue of ₹ 73,465 crores and EBITDA of ₹ 24,025 crores (as on 31.03.2025). ITC has a diversified presence in FMCG, Packaging, Paperboards & Specialty Papers and Agri-Business. ITC's aspiration to be ...

NAICS:30
NAICS Definition:Manufacturing
Employees:59,071
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Logisnext UK Ltd

Logisnext UK Ltd

-
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
ITC Limited

ITC Limited

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Logisnext UK Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ITC Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Logisnext UK Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Logisnext UK Ltd 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 - ITC Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ITC Limited 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...
Logisnext UK Ltd

Logisnext UK Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ITC Limited

ITC Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9