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

Comparison Overview

PRAN-RFL GroupPRAN-RFL Group
VS
Nestlé Nespresso SANestlé Nespresso SA
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Center, 105, Middle Badda, Dhaka, BD, 1212

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pranfoods.net/
794/1000Fair

PRAN RFL Group, one of the most reputed conglomerates in Bangladesh, is in market since 1981. It started mainly with Foundry business and gradually diversified to Light Engineering, PVC Fittings, Plastics, Food and Beverage and Agro-Processing. It has it's marketing and...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:19,489
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Nestlé Nespresso SA

Nestlé Nespresso SA

Avenue de Rhodanie 40, Lausanne, CH, CH 1007

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.nespresso.com
802/1000Good

Coffee is at the heart of everything we do, and consumer satisfaction is why we do it. Our story started with one simple idea: everyone should be able to make the perfect cup of coffee at home. Something we still believe today, which is why we think delivering the hig...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:12,727
Subsidiaries:34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL 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
Nestlé Nespresso SA

Nestlé Nespresso SA

-
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 PRAN-RFL Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Nestlé Nespresso SA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PRAN-RFL Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PRAN-RFL Group 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 - Nestlé Nespresso SA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nestlé Nespresso SA 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...
PRAN-RFL Group

PRAN-RFL Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Nestlé Nespresso SA

Nestlé Nespresso SA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1