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

Comparison Overview

Pall - Food & BeveragePall - Food & Beverage
VS
AmbevAmbev
Pall - Food & Beverage

Pall - Food & Beverage

25 Harbor Park Dr N, Port Washington, 11050, US

Last Update: 30/11/2025

View Profile
764/1000Fair

We provide the widest range of filtration and separations technology in the world. Our food & beverage process specialists are here to provide cost-effective solutions to your processing challenges.

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ambev

Ambev

São Paulo, São Paulo, 04530-001, BR

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ambev.com.br
820/1000Good

Hey there! Welcome. Here at Ambev, there are lots of people and amazing projects beyond our labels! Let’s talk about that. We believe that having a big dream requires just the same effort as having a small one. That is why our big dream began back in the 1880s, with...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:75,042
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pall - Food & Beverage

Pall - Food & Beverage

-
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
Ambev

Ambev

-
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 Pall - Food & Beverage in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Ambev in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pall - Food & Beverage (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pall - Food & Beverage 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 - Ambev (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ambev 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...
Pall - Food & Beverage

Pall - Food & Beverage

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ambev

Ambev

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8