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

Comparison Overview

Sharaf RetailSharaf Retail
VS
PetSmartPetSmart
Sharaf Retail

Sharaf Retail

Dubai, PO BOX 28091, Dubai, 0000, AE

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile

At Sharaf Retail, we believe people and performance go hand in hand, which is why we take great care in ensuring our employees have the tools and training they need to succeed.

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:579
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PetSmart

PetSmart

19601 N. 27th Avenue, Phoenix, 85027, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
743/1000Moderate

At PetSmart, we’ll do Anything for Pets. ❤️🐾 And the people who love them! Because we’re those people, too. Pets inspire and motivate us to bring our best selves to work each day. Our associates are devoted to ensuring that pets’ lives are happy and healthy. So, natura...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,731
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sharaf Retail

Sharaf Retail

-
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
PetSmart

PetSmart

-
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 Sharaf Retail in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PetSmart in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sharaf Retail (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sharaf Retail cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

PetSmart 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...
Sharaf Retail

Sharaf Retail

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PetSmart

PetSmart

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PET1765166324

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA