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

Comparison Overview

REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe SavenciaREVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia
VS
CargillCargill
REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia

REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia

180 rue clément ader, RIORGES, 42153, FR

Last Update: 22/03/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

Révillon Chocolatier, créateur de moments magiques et de plaisirs partagés depuis 1898, perpétue sa passion pour le chocolat au travers de recettes gourmandes et de qualité. De la sélection des ingrédients à leur préparation - en passant par leur présentation - rien n’e...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:253
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cargill

Cargill

15407 McGinty Rd W, Wayzata, 55391, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.cargill.com
817/1000Good

Cargill is a family company committed to nourishing the world in a safe, responsible and sustainable way. With over 158 years of experience, we sit at the heart of the supply chain, partnering with producers and customers to source, make and deliver products that are vi...

NAICS:311
NAICS Definition:Food Manufacturing
Employees:69,142
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia

REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia

-
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
Cargill

Cargill

-
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 Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cargill in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Cargill 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...
REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia

REVILLON CHOCOLATIER - Groupe Savencia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cargill

Cargill

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA