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

Comparison Overview

Performance Food GroupPerformance Food Group
VS
Coca-Cola ConsolidatedCoca-Cola Consolidated
Performance Food Group

Performance Food Group

12500 West Creek Parkway, None, Richmond, VA, US, 23238

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.pfgc.com
743/1000Moderate

Performance Food Group is an industry leader and one of the largest food and foodservice distribution companies in North America with more than 150 locations in the U.S. and parts of Canada. Founded and headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, PFG and our family of companie...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:7,883
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

4100 Coca-Cola Plaza, Charlotte, 28211, US

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
795/1000Fair

Coca-Cola Consolidated is the largest Coca-Cola bottler in the United States. Our Purpose is to honor God in all we do, serve others, pursue excellence, and grow profitably. For over 120 years, we have been deeply committed to the consumers, customers, and communities w...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:13,461
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Performance Food Group

Performance Food Group

-
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
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

-
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 Performance Food Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Coca-Cola Consolidated in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Performance Food Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Performance Food Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Coca-Cola Consolidated (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coca-Cola Consolidated 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...
Performance Food Group

Performance Food Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PER626072725
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1