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

Comparison Overview

YRC FreightYRC Freight
VS
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.
YRC Freight

YRC Freight

10990 Roe Avenue, Overland Park, KS, US, 66211

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.yrcfreight.com
752/1000Fair

YRC Freight, a leading transporter of industrial, commercial and retail goods, specializes in less-than-truckload (LTL) shipping solutions for businesses. Based in Overland Park, Kan., YRC Freight provides comprehensive North American coverage and offers a broad portfol...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:6,174
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

615 J.B Hunt Corporate Drive, Lowell, 72745, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.jbhunt.com
775/1000Fair

J.B. Hunt specializes in freight shipping for customers of all sizes. Our mission is to drive long-term value for our people, customers and shareholders while staying focused on our vision to create the most efficient transportation network in North America. Our foundat...

NAICS:484
NAICS Definition:Truck Transportation
Employees:22,134
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
YRC Freight

YRC Freight

-
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
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, 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 Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for YRC Freight in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Truck Transportation Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - YRC Freight (X = Date, Y = Severity)

YRC Freight cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. 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...
YRC Freight

YRC Freight

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
YRC424072825
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
JB-836072525

FAQ

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