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

Comparison Overview

Mackay SugarMackay Sugar
VS
Lee Kum KeeLee Kum Kee
Mackay Sugar

Mackay Sugar

Peak Downs Highway, Racecourse (via Mackay), 4741, AU

Last Update: 10/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.mkysugar.com.au
737/1000Moderate

We are Australia's second largest sugar milling company, with an annual turnover exceeding $300 million. We have three operating sugar mills - at Racecourse, Marian and Farleigh. Our revenue base includes raw and refined sugar, molasses and renewable energy. Raw sugar,...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:284
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Lee Kum Kee

Lee Kum Kee

2-4 Dai Fat St, Tai Po Industrial Estate, Tai Po, Hong Kong, HK

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://corporate.lkk.com/en
770/1000Fair

Established in 1888, Lee Kum Kee is an international household name in authentic Asian sauces and condiments, as well as “a symbol of quality and trust”. As a globally renowned Chinese multinational corporation, Lee Kum Kee now offers over 200 types of sauce and condime...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:12,984
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mackay Sugar

Mackay Sugar

-
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
Lee Kum Kee

Lee Kum Kee

-
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 Production Industry Avg (This Year)

Mackay Sugar has 0.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food Production Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lee Kum Kee in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mackay Sugar (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mackay Sugar cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Lee Kum Kee (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lee Kum Kee 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...
Mackay Sugar

Mackay Sugar

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MAC1781108783
Lee Kum Kee

Lee Kum Kee

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
1.8