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

Comparison Overview

NAPA CMAXNAPA CMAX
VS
YellowYellow
NAPA CMAX

NAPA CMAX

7025 rue Ontario Est, Montréal, H1N 2B3, CA

Last Update: 25/03/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

Le magasin de peinture et de produits de carrosserie

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:20
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Yellow

Yellow

501 Commerce St. Suite, 1120, Nashville, 37203, US

Last Update: 02/07/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.myyellow.com/
659/1000Weak

Yellow, a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Nashville, TN is one of the largest super-regional less-than-truckload (LTL) companies in North America. Nearly 100 years ago, Yellow created the LTL industry, and now it comprises four successful regional LTL companies and...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:12,400
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NAPA CMAX

NAPA CMAX

-
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
Yellow

Yellow

-
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 Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NAPA CMAX in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yellow in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NAPA CMAX (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAPA CMAX 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 - Yellow (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yellow cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
NAPA CMAX

NAPA CMAX

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Yellow

Yellow

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
YEL1783017117

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-9044
SUMMARY

An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the VPN module of TP-Link AXE75 V1 routers. This vulnerability allows an adjacent, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the device by importing a specially crafted VPN client configuration file. The issue arises from improper filtering of special characters.  Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may enable an attacker to gain full control of the affected device, potentially compromising configuration integrity, network security, and service availability.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-54909
SUMMARY

pion/stun is a Go implementation of STUN. Prior to 3.1.3, XORMappedAddress.GetFromAs can panic while parsing a malformed short XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN or ICE Binding-response parsing paths, allowing remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54785
SUMMARY

gemini-bridge is a lightweight MCP server bridging AI agents to Google's Gemini AI via the official CLI. From 1.0.0 until 1.3.1, consult_gemini_with_files in inline mode read any file path supplied in the files argument without confining it to the working directory, then forwarded the contents to the Gemini CLI. Because the caller also controls query, the file contents are echoed back through the Gemini round-trip (and sent to Google), making this an arbitrary local file read. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
CVE-2026-54768
SUMMARY

WPGraphQL provides a GraphQL API for WordPress sites. From 2.0.0 until 2.15.1, the deprecated user field on SendPasswordResetEmailPayload lets an unauthenticated caller distinguish existing author-class accounts through the sendPasswordResetEmail mutation and obtain public profile fields. This issue is fixed in version 2.15.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53573
SUMMARY

GeoNetwork is a catalog application to manage spatially referenced resources. From 3.12.0 until 4.2.16 and 4.4.11, unsafe redirect validation in GeonetworkOAuth2LoginAuthenticationFilter and KeycloakAuthenticationProcessingFilter permits an attacker-controlled external redirect after login. This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.16 and 4.4.11.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA