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

Comparison Overview

PepsiCoPepsiCo
VS
Little Caesars PizzaLittle Caesars Pizza
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, 10577, US

Last Update: 06/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pepsico.com
816/1000Good

PepsiCo is a playground for curious people. We invite thinkers, doers, and changemakers to champion innovation, take calculated risks, and challenge the status quo. From executives to team members on the front lines, we’re excited about the future. We take chances. Toge...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:158,877
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Little Caesars Pizza

Little Caesars Pizza

2211 Woodward Avenue, Avenue, Detroit, MI, US, 48201

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.littlecaesars.com
795/1000Fair

ABOUT LITTLE CAESARS® Little Caesars, the Best Value in Pizza*, was founded by Mike and Marian Ilitch as a single, family-owned restaurant in 1959 and is headquartered in downtown Detroit, Michigan. It is the third-largest pizza chain in the world, with restaurants i...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:35,973
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

-
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
Little Caesars Pizza

Little Caesars Pizza

-
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)

PepsiCo has 4.17% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Little Caesars Pizza in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PepsiCo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PepsiCo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Little Caesars Pizza (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Little Caesars Pizza 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...
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEP1776869574
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814
Little Caesars Pizza

Little Caesars Pizza

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2