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

Comparison Overview

Markitforce POS LogisticsMarkitforce POS Logistics
VS
ID Logistics GroupID Logistics Group
Markitforce POS Logistics

Markitforce POS Logistics

23 Fiveways Boulevard, Melbourne, 3173, AU

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Part of WPP AUNZ, Markitforce is an ACTIVE Display Group brand committed to the very latest in innovation and technology to ensure our clients the best retail point of sale & product logistical management and solutions. Founded in 2001, Markitforce is quality endorsed -...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:82
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ID Logistics Group

ID Logistics Group

55, Chemin des Engranauds, Orgon, 13660, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
767/1000Fair

ID Logistics, headed by Eric Hémar, is an international contract logistics group with revenues of €3.3 billion in 2024. ID Logistics manages nearly 450 sites in 19 countries, representing more than 9 million m² operated in Europe, America, Asia and Africa, with 42,000 e...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:16,667
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Markitforce POS Logistics

Markitforce POS 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
ID Logistics Group

ID Logistics Group

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Markitforce POS Logistics in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ID Logistics Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Markitforce POS Logistics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Markitforce POS Logistics 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 - ID Logistics Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ID Logistics Group 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...
Markitforce POS Logistics

Markitforce POS Logistics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ID Logistics Group

ID Logistics Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8