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

Comparison Overview

M Social SingaporeM Social Singapore
VS
AramarkAramark
M Social Singapore

M Social Singapore

90 Robertson Quay, Singapore, undefined, 23, SG

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile

Designed by Philippe Starck, M Social is the latest hotel by Millennium Hotels and Resorts. We are a contemporary lifestyle hotel along the stunning and historic Singapore River created for the adventurers, the explorers and those who live for new experiences. In 2017,...

NAICS:721
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:38
Subsidiaries:60
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aramark

Aramark

2400 Market St, Philadelphia, 19103, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aramark.com
752/1000Fair

Aramark (NYSE: ARMK) proudly serves the world’s leading educational institutions, Fortune 500 companies, world champion sports teams, prominent healthcare providers, iconic destinations and cultural attractions, and numerous municipalities in 16 countries around the wor...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:54,652
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
M Social Singapore

M Social Singapore

-
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
Aramark

Aramark

-
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 Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for M Social Singapore in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramark in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - M Social Singapore (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M Social Singapore 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 - Aramark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aramark 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...
M Social Singapore

M Social Singapore

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aramark

Aramark

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARA559082025

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2