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

Comparison Overview

Transcom Foods LimitedTranscom Foods Limited
VS
KFCKFC
Transcom Foods Limited

Transcom Foods Limited

Dhaka, 1212, BD

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile

Transcom Foods Limited is a concern of Transcom Limited (One of the leading and fastest growing diversified business houses in the country. With diversified business involving high-tech manufacturing (Eskayef Pharmaceuticals/SK+F, Pepsi, Bangladesh Lamps etc) , internat...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:249
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
KFC

KFC

KFC Global Headquarters , Dallas, TX, US, 75024

Last Update: 12/10/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://global.kfc.com/
701/1000Moderate

We’re KFC. The iconic, brand making world-famous finger lickin’ good fried chicken since 1952. Our unrivaled people and culture are the true heart and soul of our brand. It’s where our people promise comes to life every day. Where our employees can be their best selves,...

NAICS:7225
NAICS Definition:Restaurants and Other Eating Places
Employees:102,158
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Transcom Foods Limited

Transcom Foods Limited

-
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
KFC

KFC

-
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 Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Transcom Foods Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)

KFC has 96.08% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Transcom Foods Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transcom Foods Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

KFC 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...
Transcom Foods Limited

Transcom Foods Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
KFC

KFC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KFCYUM1791779067
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
(株)1784161532
🔒 Incident : Breach
NORKFCFOHTACHYA1769001351

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8