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

Comparison Overview

Starbucks ChinaStarbucks China
VS
CoppelCoppel
Starbucks China

Starbucks China

徐汇区桂箐路65号, 上海市, 上海市, CN, 200233

Last Update: 22/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.starbucks.com.cn
780/1000Fair

星巴克咖啡公司自1999年进入中国以来,秉承“激发并孕育人文精神——每人、每杯、每个社区”的公司使命,我们始终致力于在中国成为一家与众不同的公司:在传承经典咖啡文化的同时,关爱我们的伙伴,为顾客提供超越期望的星巴克体验,并为所在社区的繁荣做出自己的贡献。目前星巴克已经在中国大陆130多个城市开设了3,000多家门店,拥有40,000名身穿绿围裙的星巴克伙伴。 我们热爱我们的咖啡。星巴克始终致力于通过道德采购,烘焙并提供高品质的阿拉比卡咖啡豆。我们还在中国云南普洱建立了星巴克中国咖啡种植者支持中心,旨在整合...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:2,455
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Coppel

Coppel

República 2855 pte, Recursos Hidráulicos, Culiacan, Sinaloa, MX, 80105

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.coppel.com
804/1000Good

Coppel es una empresa mexicana con sede en la ciudad de Culiacán, que ha sido fundada en 1941. Es una cadena comercial de tiendas departamentales de ventas a través del otorgamiento de créditos con pocos requisitos, y repartos gratuitos. En la actualidad cuenta con mas ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:30,834
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Starbucks China

Starbucks China

-
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
Coppel

Coppel

-
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 Starbucks China in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coppel in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Starbucks China (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Starbucks China cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Coppel 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...
Starbucks China

Starbucks China

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Coppel

Coppel

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
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:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3