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

Comparison Overview

RumahRumah
VS
Landmark GroupLandmark Group
Rumah

Rumah

Centro, Balneário Camboriú, BR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rumah.com.br
784/1000Fair

Fundada em Junho de 2015, a Rumah é uma loja online especializada em artigos de decoração e itens para a casa, entregando seus produtos para o Brasil inteiro. Com um portfólio grande e variado, a Rumah proporciona diversas opções para seus clientes em várias categorias....

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:13,643
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Landmark Group

Landmark Group

Dubai, AE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
824/1000Good

For over five decades, Landmark Group has shaped the region’s retail and hospitality landscape-growing from a single store in Bahrain to one of the largest and most successful omnichannel and hospitality groups across the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Rooted in purpose...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,749
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Rumah

Rumah

-
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
Landmark Group

Landmark 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rumah in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Landmark Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Rumah 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 - Landmark Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Landmark Group 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...
Rumah

Rumah

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Landmark Group

Landmark Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85456
SUMMARY

MOOS-IvP through 24.8.1 fails to properly validate variable names extracted from alog files in the SplitHandler, allowing attackers to write files outside the split directory. Attackers can supply crafted alog files with backslash sequences in variable names to escape the output directory and append to arbitrary files on Windows systems.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-85455
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer over-read vulnerability in CMOOSCommPkt where a four-byte packet triggers out-of-bounds memory access during deserialization. Attackers can open a TCP connection to the MOOSDB port and send a crafted short packet to read memory before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-85454
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in CMOOSSerialPort::GetTelegram() that writes a NUL terminator one byte past the serial telegram stack buffer. Attackers controlling the serial line can send a full-length telegram to trigger the off-by-one write, corrupting the stack and potentially enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9
CVE-2026-85453
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 fails to escape database contents when rendering MOOSDB HTTP pages, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts. Any MOOS publisher can set variable values containing script payloads that execute in the browser of operators viewing the web interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-85452
SUMMARY

MOOS ui-moos through 50b9c6c contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in ScopeTabPane.cpp and ScopeGrid.cpp where client and variable names are formatted into fixed 1024-byte buffers using sprintf without length validation. Attackers can supply arbitrarily long MOOS identifiers that overflow the buffers when an operator selects process list entries or pokes variables, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8