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

Comparison Overview

Rosewood NingboRosewood Ningbo
VS
AramarkAramark
Rosewood Ningbo

Rosewood Ningbo

N/A

Last Update: 27/10/2025

View Profile
773/1000Fair

Rosewood Ningbo will occupy levels 43-56 of a striking mixed-use high-rise tower. The hotel’s 185 guestrooms and 15 oversized suites will feature unobstructed views of the urban landscape. Complementing the hotel’s guestrooms, generous and versatile spaces for meetings ...

NAICS:721
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:60
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aramark

Aramark

2400 Market St, Philadelphia, 19103, US

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aramark.com
763/1000Fair

Aramark (NYSE: ARMK) proudly serves the world’s leading educational institutions, Fortune 500 companies, world champion sports teams, prominent healthcare providers, iconic destinations and cultural attractions, and numerous municipalities in 16 countries around the wor...

NAICS:7211
NAICS Definition:Traveler Accommodation
Employees:57,867
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Rosewood Ningbo

Rosewood Ningbo

-
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
Aramark

Aramark

-
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 Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rosewood Ningbo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aramark in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Rosewood Ningbo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rosewood Ningbo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Aramark 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...
Rosewood Ningbo

Rosewood Ningbo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aramark

Aramark

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARA559082025

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8