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

Comparison Overview

Mey DiageoMey Diageo
VS
US FoodsUS Foods
Mey Diageo

Mey Diageo

Esentepe Mahallesi, Büyükdere Cad. & Bahar Sok. River Plaza No:13, 34394 Şişli/İstanbul, İstanbul, Şişli, 34394, TR

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.meydiageo.com
768/1000Fair

180 ülkede, 21 pazarda faaliyet gösteren, 30 bini aşkın çalışanı ile farklı karakter zenginliklerini kucaklayan bir organizasyonuz. Geniş ürün portföyümüz, ilham veren markalarımız, farklı coğrafyaların kültürel zenginliklerini yansıtan çalışanlarımız ile geçmişin miras...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:1,110
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
US Foods

US Foods

9399 W. Higgins Rd., Suite 500, Rosemont, IL, US, 60018

Last Update: 25/07/2026

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

US Foods is one of America’s great food companies and a leading foodservice distributor, partnering with approximately 300,000 restaurants and foodservice operators to help their businesses succeed. With 28,000 associates and more than 70 locations, US Foods provides ...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:24,952
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mey Diageo

Mey Diageo

-
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
US Foods

US Foods

-
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 and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mey Diageo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for US Foods in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mey Diageo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mey Diageo 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 - US Foods (X = Date, Y = Severity)

US Foods 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...
Mey Diageo

Mey Diageo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
US Foods

US Foods

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9