Comparison Overview

Mark Anthony Group

VS

Pernod Ricard

Mark Anthony Group

None, None, Vancouver, British Columbia, CA, None
Last Update: 2025-09-07 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

The Mark Anthony Group of Companies is one of North America’s most diversified and successful private beverage companies focused on the alcohol beverage sector. Founded in 1972, the Company grew organically from a one-man wine importing business to a producer and distributor of fine wine, premium spirits, and ready-to-drink beverages, including White Claw Hard Seltzer. The Company’s Founder & CEO is also the Proprietor of the Iconic Wineries of British Columbia, a collection of prestigious wineries and estate vineyards including the award-winning Mission Hill Family Estate, CedarCreek Estate Winery, Martin’s Lane Winery and CheckMate Artisanal Winery in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. In addition, the Company proudly distributes many leading International wine and spirits brands, providing seamless services from producer to consumer across Canada.

NAICS: 3121
NAICS Definition: Beverage Manufacturing
Employees: 1,176
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Pernod Ricard

5 cour Paul Ricard, None, Paris, Ile-de-France, FR, 75008
Last Update: 2025-08-30 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

Pernod Ricard is a convivial, responsible and successful global wine and spirits group and the #1 premium spirits organisation in the world. The Group represents 240 premium brands available in more than 160 countries. We are 18,500 exceptionally talented people worldwide with our own salesforce in 73 countries. Our portfolio is one of the most comprehensive in the market with every major category of wine and spirits, providing Pernod Ricard with a unique competitive advantage. To keep growing our business, transforming our industry and making a positive impact on the world, we believe in the power of human connection. Creating ‘convivialité’ is our business and our raison d’être. As ‘créateurs de convivialité’, our purpose is to turn every social interaction into a genuine, friendly and responsible experience of sharing. We believe there can be no convivialité with excess and strive to be sustainable and responsible at every step, from grain to glass. You must be of legal drinking age to follow and only share with others of age. Enjoy our brands responsibly. UGC policy: https://bit.ly/41XEYbx

NAICS: 3121
NAICS Definition: Beverage Manufacturing
Employees: 19,581
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mark-anthony-group.jpeg
Mark Anthony Group
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pernod-ricard.jpeg
Pernod Ricard
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC 2
Not verified
GDPR
No public badge
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Mark Anthony Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pernod Ricard
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Beverage Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mark Anthony Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Beverage Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pernod Ricard in 2025.

Incident History — Mark Anthony Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mark Anthony Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Pernod Ricard (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pernod Ricard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mark-anthony-group.jpeg
Mark Anthony Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pernod-ricard.jpeg
Pernod Ricard
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Mark Anthony Group company and Pernod Ricard company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Pernod Ricard company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Mark Anthony Group company.

In the current year, Pernod Ricard company and Mark Anthony Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Pernod Ricard company nor Mark Anthony Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Pernod Ricard company nor Mark Anthony Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Pernod Ricard company nor Mark Anthony Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mark Anthony Group company nor Pernod Ricard company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Pernod Ricard company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mark Anthony Group company.

Pernod Ricard company employs more people globally than Mark Anthony Group company, reflecting its scale as a Beverage Manufacturing.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tricked a user into giving up their Geode session credentials to submit malicious commands on the target system on behalf of the authenticated user. This issue affects Apache Geode: versions 1.10 through 1.15.1 Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.15.2, which fixes the issue.

Description

The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1.12 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'theme_editor_theme' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to achieve remote code execution via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Local access is required to approach this attack. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.0.0.1 is able to mitigate this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The vendor was contacted beforehand and was able to provide a patch very early.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.8
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: mscc: ocelot: Fix use-after-free caused by cyclic delayed work The origin code calls cancel_delayed_work() in ocelot_stats_deinit() to cancel the cyclic delayed work item ocelot->stats_work. However, cancel_delayed_work() may fail to cancel the work item if it is already executing. While destroy_workqueue() does wait for all pending work items in the work queue to complete before destroying the work queue, it cannot prevent the delayed work item from being rescheduled within the ocelot_check_stats_work() function. This limitation exists because the delayed work item is only enqueued into the work queue after its timer expires. Before the timer expiration, destroy_workqueue() has no visibility of this pending work item. Once the work queue appears empty, destroy_workqueue() proceeds with destruction. When the timer eventually expires, the delayed work item gets queued again, leading to the following warning: workqueue: cannot queue ocelot_check_stats_work on wq ocelot-switch-stats WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at kernel/workqueue.c:2255 __queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RIP: 0010:__queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RSP: 0018:ffff88806d108b10 EFLAGS: 00010086 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000101 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 0000000000000027 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff88806d123e88 RBP: ffffffff813c3170 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed100da247d2 R10: ffffed100da247d1 R11: ffff88806d123e8b R12: ffff88800c00f000 R13: ffff88800d7285c0 R14: ffff88806d0a5580 R15: ffff88800d7285a0 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880e5725000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fe18e45ea10 CR3: 0000000005e6c000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <IRQ> ? kasan_report+0xc6/0xf0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 call_timer_fn+0x25/0x1c0 __run_timer_base.part.0+0x3be/0x8c0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? rcu_sched_clock_irq+0xb06/0x27d0 ? __pfx___run_timer_base.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? try_to_wake_up+0xb15/0x1960 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x603/0x7e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 ? sched_balance_trigger+0x1c0/0x9f0 ? sched_tick+0x221/0x5a0 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 ? tick_nohz_handler+0x339/0x440 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 __walk_groups.isra.0+0x42/0x150 tmigr_handle_remote+0x1f4/0x2e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote+0x10/0x10 ? ktime_get+0x60/0x140 ? lapic_next_event+0x11/0x20 ? clockevents_program_event+0x1d4/0x2a0 ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x322/0x780 handle_softirqs+0x16a/0x550 irq_exit_rcu+0xaf/0xe0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x80 </IRQ> ... The following diagram reveals the cause of the above warning: CPU 0 (remove) | CPU 1 (delayed work callback) mscc_ocelot_remove() | ocelot_deinit() | ocelot_check_stats_work() ocelot_stats_deinit() | cancel_delayed_work()| ... | queue_delayed_work() destroy_workqueue() | (wait a time) | __queue_work() //UAF The above scenario actually constitutes a UAF vulnerability. The ocelot_stats_deinit() is only invoked when initialization failure or resource destruction, so we must ensure that any delayed work items cannot be rescheduled. Replace cancel_delayed_work() with disable_delayed_work_sync() to guarantee proper cancellation of the delayed work item and ensure completion of any currently executing work before the workqueue is deallocated. A deadlock concern was considered: ocelot_stats_deinit() is called in a process context and is not holding any locks that the delayed work item might also need. Therefore, the use of the _sync() variant is safe here. This bug was identified through static analysis. To reproduce the issue and validate the fix, I simulated ocelot-swit ---truncated---