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

Comparison Overview

Starks IndustriesStarks Industries
VS
Acosta GroupAcosta Group
Starks Industries

Starks Industries

1775 I St NW, Washington, 20006, US

Last Update: 26/05/2026

View Profile
734/1000Moderate

"We strive to use our experience and expertise to develop, empower, enable and grow businesses around the world."​ Our mission is to leverage technology and innovation to enable partnerships with clients that lead to mission success. Our vision is to be the provider of...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:21
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Acosta Group

Acosta Group

6600 Corporate Center Pkwy, Jacksonville, 32216, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.acosta.group/
774/1000Fair

Acosta Group fuses storied expertise, unmatched connectivity and advanced insight to accelerate brand growth – everywhere you sell. Our collective of the most trusted retail, marketing and foodservice agencies is reimagining how people connect with brands at every point...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:38,367
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Starks Industries

Starks Industries

-
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
Acosta Group

Acosta 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Starks Industries has 20.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Acosta Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Starks Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Starks Industries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Acosta Group 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...
Starks Industries

Starks Industries

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MIRSTA1779798899
Acosta Group

Acosta Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63175
SUMMARY

PlaywrightCapture stored capture-specific configuration and runtime data as mutable class-level variables rather than instance-level variables. Consequently, multiple Capture objects running within the same Python process could share state, including HTTP headers, cookies, browser storage, HTTP credentials, proxy configuration, user-agent settings, geolocation information, and captured request data. In a multi-user or concurrent deployment, information supplied during one capture could therefore persist and be reused by a subsequent or parallel capture. This could result in the disclosure of authentication cookies, credentials, browser storage, or captured request data belonging to another user. It could also cause requests to be performed with another capture's authentication context, headers, or proxy configuration, potentially enabling unauthorized access to remote resources or interference with other capture operations. The vulnerability is resolved by initializing all capture-specific settings and request data as instance variables in the Capture constructor, ensuring that state is isolated between capture operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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-2026-62314
SUMMARY

Anubis is a Web AI Firewall Utility that challenges users' connections in order to protect upstream resources from scraper bots. From 1.22.0 until 1.26.0-pre1, lib/policy/checker.go PathChecker.Check() trusted the client-controlled X-Original-URI header before matching r.URL.Path, allowing an HTTP client to match default data/common/keep-internet-working.yaml ALLOW rules such as ^/\.well-known/.*$ and bypass the Anubis challenge. This issue is fixed in version 1.26.0-pre1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55652
SUMMARY

Wekan is open source kanban built with Meteor. Prior to 9.46, header-login with HEADER_LOGIN_TRUSTED_IPS uses getRequestIp() in server/lib/headerLoginAuth.js to trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For header before the real socket address, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to send HEADER_LOGIN_ID for any username and receive a meteor_login_token session, including for admin. This issue is fixed in version 9.46.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55576
SUMMARY

MaaAssistantArknights is a one-click tool for daily Arknights tasks. In the current dev-v2 workflow, .github/workflows/release-preparation.yml inlined attacker-controlled github.event.pull_request.title into a run: shell command during the pull_request opened, reopened, and ready_for_review events, so a non-draft fork PR whose title starts with Release v could execute shell commands on the ubuntu-latest runner during the generate-changelog job. This vulnerability is fixed by commit cafc3946059e6337d2089d4fec8b6885ba17c332.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/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-2026-55445
SUMMARY

Qinglong is a timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, and Typescript. Prior to 2.20.1, the init guard middleware in back/loaders/express.ts checks /api/user/init but not /open/user/init, while rewrite('/open/*', '/api/$1') rewrites the whitelisted /open/* path after JWT authentication and the guard have passed; an unauthenticated attacker can send PUT /open/user/init to reset administrator credentials on an initialized instance. This issue is fixed in 2.20.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
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