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

Comparison Overview

Plow & HearthPlow & Hearth
VS
Ahold DelhaizeAhold Delhaize
Plow & Hearth

Plow & Hearth

7021 Wolftown Hood Rd, Madison, 22727, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.plowandhearth.com
769/1000Fair

Founded in 1980 as a small country store, Plow & Hearth® has grown into a leading retailer of products for home, hearth, yard and garden. Successfully marketing these products through all three major channels - catalog, internet and retail stores - Plow & Hearth has evo...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:216
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Ahold Delhaize

Ahold Delhaize

Ahold, Provincialeweg 11, 1506 MA Zaandam, NL

Last Update: 14/10/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.aholddelhaize.com
649/1000Poor

Ahold Delhaize is one of the world’s largest food retail groups, we are a leader in supermarkets and e-commerce, and a company at the forefront of sustainable retailing. Our local brands employ around 393,000 associates in around 9,400 local grocery, small format, and s...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:84,256
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
5
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Plow & Hearth

Plow & Hearth

-
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
Ahold Delhaize

Ahold Delhaize

-
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 Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Plow & Hearth in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

Ahold Delhaize has 390.2% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Plow & Hearth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Plow & Hearth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ahold Delhaize (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ahold Delhaize 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...
Plow & Hearth

Plow & Hearth

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PLO919072825
Ahold Delhaize

Ahold Delhaize

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NETINTALBSTOCOOAHOLES1792002949
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HANAHO1791910036
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STOLIFETOAHO1791815396

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
Plow-&-hearth vs Ahold-delhaize - Cyber Risk Comparison & Security Rating | Rankiteo