Comparison Overview

Abbey Labels Ltd

VS

Colorcom, Inc.

Abbey Labels Ltd

1 The Courtyard, Lamdin Road, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, GB, IP32 6NU
Last Update: 2025-12-17

Abbey have — in the past 20 years — built a reputation founded on fact. We are East Anglia´s leading label supplier in terms of supply range, quality, expertise, resources and in-plant capabilities. We are here to help, advise, plan and produce, cost-effective and compliant solutions for all your next labelling projects. We know the importance of accuracy, print quality and operating meticulous control procedures throughout all aspects of label production. Abbey hold ISO14001 and BRC/IoP certification. Our project leaders and production staff work with brand managers, and sales and marketing directors to ensure, accuracy, quality and reliability. Be assured, the management and production staff at Abbey Labels do not work with blue chip clients as a result of overnight achievements: our track record and in-plant resources meet high expectations continually. Talk to the experts at Abbey Labels to find the most cost-effective solution in your next labelling project.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 12
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Colorcom, Inc.

2437 S. Eastern Ave, Commerce, CA 90040, US
Last Update: 2025-12-18
Between 750 and 799

Colorcom is a Trade Printer serving the West Coast for over 34 years. We offer competitive pricing, high quality print products and Great customer service. We offer small to large Offset Printing as well as Packaging. Colorcom specializes in catalogs, books, brochures, posters, packaging, etc... you name it, we can print.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 12
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/abbey-labels.jpeg
Abbey Labels Ltd
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/colorcom-inc..jpeg
Colorcom, 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
Compliance Summary
Abbey Labels Ltd
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Colorcom, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Abbey Labels Ltd in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Colorcom, Inc. in 2025.

Incident History — Abbey Labels Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Abbey Labels Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Colorcom, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Colorcom, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/abbey-labels.jpeg
Abbey Labels Ltd
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/colorcom-inc..jpeg
Colorcom, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Colorcom, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Abbey Labels Ltd company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Colorcom, Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Abbey Labels Ltd company.

In the current year, Colorcom, Inc. company and Abbey Labels Ltd company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Colorcom, Inc. company nor Abbey Labels Ltd company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Colorcom, Inc. company nor Abbey Labels Ltd company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Colorcom, Inc. company nor Abbey Labels Ltd company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd company nor Colorcom, Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd company nor Colorcom, Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Both Abbey Labels Ltd company and Colorcom, Inc. company employ a similar number of people globally.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Abbey Labels Ltd nor Colorcom, Inc. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L