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

Comparison Overview

Starboard GroupStarboard Group
VS
7-Eleven7-Eleven
Starboard Group

Starboard Group

8400 NW 36th Street, Suite 600, Miami, Florida, US, 33166

Last Update: 18/01/2026

View Profile
777/1000Fair

From its origins in 1958 charting new courses in the duty-free industry, Starboard has always been more than just a retailer—we're curators of vibrant experiences that enrich every vacation. As the world’s leading vacation retailer at sea, we've perfected the art of cre...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:1,710
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
7-Eleven

7-Eleven

3200 Hackberry Rd, Irving, 75063, US

Last Update: 16/06/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.7-ELEVEn.com
587/1000Very Poor

7-Eleven introduced the world to convenience. And in return, the world made us the #1 convenience retailer. It started with a simple idea – give customers what they want, when and where they want it. That was 1927. And what started on a single ice dock in Dallas, Texas,...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:55,173
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Starboard Group

Starboard 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
7-Eleven

7-Eleven

-
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 Starboard Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

7-Eleven has 482.52% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Starboard Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Starboard Group 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 - 7-Eleven (X = Date, Y = Severity)

7-Eleven 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...
Starboard Group

Starboard Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
7-Eleven

7-Eleven

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
7-E1779806236
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEN1779855877
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ANTFOX7-ECARGIT1781576848

FAQ

Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Starboard Group company and 7-Eleven company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Starboard Group and 7-Eleven, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Starboard Group and 7-Eleven, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Starboard Group or 7-Eleven ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Starboard Group or 7-Eleven ?
Between Starboard Group and 7-Eleven, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Starboard Group and 7-Eleven, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9