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

Comparison Overview

Shaw’s and Star MarketShaw’s and Star Market
VS
H-E-BH-E-B
Shaw’s and Star Market

Shaw’s and Star Market

750 W Center St, West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, US, 02379

Last Update: 17/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.shaws.com
779/1000Fair

Shaw’s and Star Market boast a rich history rooted in the small towns and historical cities of New England. Shaw’s, one of the oldest continuously operating food retailers in the United States, has its origins dating back to 1860. Star Market, a premier food retailer, h...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:4,346
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
H-E-B

H-E-B

646 South Flores, San Antonio, TX, US, 78204

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://careers.heb.com
809/1000Good

H-E-B is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas with approximately $46 billion in revenue and 160,000+ Partners. Founded in 1905, H-E-B operates more than 435 stores in a number of formats, including H-E-B, Joe V’s Smart Shop, Central Market, Mi Tienda, and Favor. There a...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:50,974
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Shaw’s and Star Market

Shaw’s and Star Market

-
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
H-E-B

H-E-B

-
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 Shaw’s and Star Market in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for H-E-B in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Shaw’s and Star Market (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shaw’s and Star Market 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 - H-E-B (X = Date, Y = Severity)

H-E-B 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...
Shaw’s and Star Market

Shaw’s and Star Market

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
H-E-B

H-E-B

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2