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

Comparison Overview

32 Bar Blues32 Bar Blues
VS
John Lewis PartnershipJohn Lewis Partnership
32 Bar Blues

32 Bar Blues

12 W Cota Street, Santa Barbara, 93101, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.32barblues.com
749/1000Moderate

Men's direct-to-consumer catalog and internet retailer of high-quality, artisan-crafted clothing, accessories, luggage and footwear headquartered in Santa Barbara, California with national/international distribution. Founded by Bruce Willard. 100% guaranteed.

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:17
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
John Lewis Partnership

John Lewis Partnership

Carlisle Place, London, England, GB, SW1P 1BX

Last Update: 29/03/2026

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

We’re the largest employee owned business in the UK and home of our cherished brands, John Lewis and Waitrose. We’re not just employees, we’re Partners, driven by our purpose to build a happier world. As we look to our future, there’s never been a more exciting time to ...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:36,147
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
32 Bar Blues

32 Bar Blues

-
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
John Lewis Partnership

John Lewis Partnership

-
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 Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 32 Bar Blues in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for John Lewis Partnership in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 32 Bar Blues (X = Date, Y = Severity)

32 Bar Blues cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - John Lewis Partnership (X = Date, Y = Severity)

John Lewis Partnership 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...
32 Bar Blues

32 Bar Blues

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
32-702100325
John Lewis Partnership

John Lewis Partnership

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 32 Bar Blues company and John Lewis Partnership company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 32 Bar Blues and John Lewis Partnership, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 32 Bar Blues and John Lewis Partnership, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 32 Bar Blues or John Lewis Partnership ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 32 Bar Blues or John Lewis Partnership ?
Between 32 Bar Blues and John Lewis Partnership, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 32 Bar Blues and John Lewis Partnership, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9