Comparison Overview
Murphy Goode Wines

Murphy Goode Wines
undefined, Sonoma County, California, undefined, US
Last Update: 06/05/2026
Murphy-Goode makes friendship their mantra because they were founded on it. Back in 1985, good friends, Tim Murphy, Dale Goode, and Dave Ready, were deep in their weekly game of liar’s dice when an idea was formulated. On that particularly lively night, the trio decided...

Diageo
Lakeside Drive, Park Royal, London, GB, NW10 7HQ
Last Update: 05/10/2026
Diageo's official LinkedIn account. We're a global leader in premium drinks, across spirits and beer, a business built on the principles and foundations laid by the giants of the industry. With over 200 brands sold in 180 countries, our portfolio has remarkable breadth...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Murphy Goode Wines







Diageo






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Murphy Goode Wines in 2026.
Incidents vs Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Diageo in 2026.
Incident History - Murphy Goode Wines (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Murphy Goode Wines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Diageo (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Diageo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Murphy Goode Wines

Diageo
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.
Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.
Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.