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

Comparison Overview

UAB Švyturys - Utenos alusUAB Švyturys - Utenos alus
VS
PepsiCoPepsiCo
UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus

UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, LT

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.svyturys.eu
762/1000Fair

Švyturys-Utenos alus dates back to 1784, when the German merchant Jacob Rainecke founded the first industrial brewery Švyturys in Klaipėda. Over those years Švyturys has grown from a small brewery to the largest beer company in Lithuania. In 1999 Švyturys became a par...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:159
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, 10577, US

Last Update: 06/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pepsico.com
816/1000Good

PepsiCo is a playground for curious people. We invite thinkers, doers, and changemakers to champion innovation, take calculated risks, and challenge the status quo. From executives to team members on the front lines, we’re excited about the future. We take chances. Toge...

NAICS:722
NAICS Definition:Food Services and Drinking Places
Employees:158,877
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus

UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus

-
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
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

-
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 UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus in 2026.

Incidents

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

PepsiCo has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

PepsiCo 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...
UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus

UAB Švyturys - Utenos alus

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PepsiCo

PepsiCo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEP1776869574
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814

FAQ

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