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

Comparison Overview

Pots & Co LtdPots & Co Ltd
VS
PepsiCoPepsiCo
Pots & Co Ltd

Pots & Co Ltd

307 Elveden Road, London, undefined, NW10 7ST, GB

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.potsandco.com
761/1000Fair

Pots & Co was founded in 2012 by Julian Dyer, who wanted to take exceptional puddings out of restaurants and into homes. From our kitchen in London, we hand-make and steam-bake all our puds in their individual ceramic pots – that’s what creates their inimitable depth an...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:39
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
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

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pots & Co Ltd

Pots & Co Ltd

-
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
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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Pots & Co Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

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

PepsiCo has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Pots & Co Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pots & Co Ltd 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 - 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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Pots & Co Ltd

Pots & Co Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEP1776869574
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9