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
Ross Stores, Inc.Ross Stores, Inc.
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
Ross Stores, Inc.

Ross Stores, Inc.

5130 Hacienda Drive, Dublin, CA, US, 94568

Last Update: 05/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://jobs.rossstores.com/
835/1000Good

For the last 40+ years, Ross Stores, Inc. has grown from a six-store chain into an $21.1 billion, Fortune 500 Company. We operate our off-price businesses in a way that keeps costs low so we can pass the savings to our customers. We continue to open new stores and our s...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:40,653
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
Ross Stores, Inc.

Ross Stores, Inc.

-
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 Ross Stores, Inc. 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 - Ross Stores, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ross Stores, Inc. 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.
Ross Stores, Inc.

Ross Stores, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3