Comparison Overview

3 Guys on Fire, Inc.

VS

Cycling Sports Group UK

3 Guys on Fire, Inc.

None
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

3 Guys on Fire, Inc. launched a product called the Tail Devil at A.S.R. in January of 2004. Ever since the company has enjoyed phenomenal success in the skateboard industry, reaching into every market segment from in house skateboard brand development, private label OEM, licensing and wholesale distribution of other innovative products and ideas related to the extreme sports industry.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: None
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Cycling Sports Group UK

Vantage Way, Poole, BH12 4NU, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-21

Cycling Sports Group is proud to present a truly unique and powerful portfolio of cycling brands to the market, continually striving to evolve our business through the very best products and service available today. Formerly known as Hotwheels International, originally a BMX distributor with over three decades of heritage, CSG was officially established in 2009 along with the introduction of American bicycle brand Cannondale joining an already illustrious portfolio including Charge, GT, Mongoose, Fabric and Wethepeople, and an extensive range of accessories designed to enhance your riding experience. Located in Poole, Dorset, our dedicated and passionate team manage every aspect of the business from sales, marketing, accounts, distribution and customer service to support our growing network of retailers throughout the UK.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 2
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
3 Guys on Fire, Inc.
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cycling-sports-group-uk.jpeg
Cycling Sports Group UK
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
3 Guys on Fire, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cycling Sports Group UK
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Sporting Goods Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. in 2025.

Incidents vs Sporting Goods Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cycling Sports Group UK in 2025.

Incident History — 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

3 Guys on Fire, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cycling Sports Group UK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cycling Sports Group UK cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
3 Guys on Fire, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cycling-sports-group-uk.jpeg
Cycling Sports Group UK
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cycling Sports Group UK company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cycling Sports Group UK company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company.

In the current year, Cycling Sports Group UK company and 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cycling Sports Group UK company nor 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cycling Sports Group UK company nor 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cycling Sports Group UK company nor 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company nor Cycling Sports Group UK company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. company nor Cycling Sports Group UK company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds HIPAA certification.

Neither 3 Guys on Fire, Inc. nor Cycling Sports Group UK holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: 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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H