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

Comparison Overview

Sysco International Food Group (IFG)Sysco International Food Group (IFG)
VS
Coca-Cola ConsolidatedCoca-Cola Consolidated
Sysco International Food Group (IFG)

Sysco International Food Group (IFG)

2401 Police Center Dr, #240, Plant City, Florida, US, 33566

Last Update: 16/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://sysco.com/ifg
762/1000Fair

As Sysco's export specialty division, IFG delivers expertise in product selection, specialized services and supply chain capabilities to customers in over 80 countries around the world. Every day, the team supports our independent distributor partners and US-based rest...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:109
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

4100 Coca-Cola Plaza, Charlotte, 28211, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
795/1000Fair

Coca-Cola Consolidated is the largest Coca-Cola bottler in the United States. Our Purpose is to honor God in all we do, serve others, pursue excellence, and grow profitably. For over 120 years, we have been deeply committed to the consumers, customers, and communities w...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:14,233
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sysco International Food Group (IFG)

Sysco International Food Group (IFG)

-
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
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

-
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 Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sysco International Food Group (IFG) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Food and Beverage Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Coca-Cola Consolidated in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sysco International Food Group (IFG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sysco International Food Group (IFG) 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 - Coca-Cola Consolidated (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coca-Cola Consolidated 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...
Sysco International Food Group (IFG)

Sysco International Food Group (IFG)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Coca-Cola Consolidated

Coca-Cola Consolidated

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8