Comparison Overview

Advanced Graphics, inc

VS

Lick & Stick Graphics

Advanced Graphics, inc

466 N Marshall Way, Layton, Utah 84041, US
Last Update: 2025-12-12

Since 1984, Advanced Graphics has been committed to producing the highest quality Cardboard Standups and Custom Prints in the world. We are the worldwide industry leader in the licensing and distribution of Cardboard Standups. We are also the #1 source for Licensed and Custom cardboard standups in the industry. Our goal is to provide the highest quality prints to our customers. We put our customers first and will continue to provide the best customer service to those who keep us in business.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 16
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Lick & Stick Graphics

Lick n Stick Graphics, Thorpe, tw20 8rx, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

Lick & Stick Graphics have a wide variety of services to offer customers from Large format digital printing and graphic design through to bespoke samples, graphic installations, and Event Management. If you are starting a project we would be happy to offer expert advice on printing materials, printing processes, and installation to help you start the ball rolling. #largeformatprinting #visualmerchandising #tvproduction #retaildesign #experientialmarketing

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 10
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/advanced-graphics-inc.jpeg
Advanced Graphics, 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/lick-n-stick-graphics.jpeg
Lick & Stick Graphics
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
Advanced Graphics, inc
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Lick & Stick Graphics
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Advanced Graphics, inc in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lick & Stick Graphics in 2025.

Incident History — Advanced Graphics, inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Advanced Graphics, inc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Lick & Stick Graphics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lick & Stick Graphics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/advanced-graphics-inc.jpeg
Advanced Graphics, inc
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lick-n-stick-graphics.jpeg
Lick & Stick Graphics
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Advanced Graphics, inc company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lick & Stick Graphics company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Lick & Stick Graphics company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Advanced Graphics, inc company.

In the current year, Lick & Stick Graphics company and Advanced Graphics, inc company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Lick & Stick Graphics company nor Advanced Graphics, inc company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Lick & Stick Graphics company nor Advanced Graphics, inc company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Lick & Stick Graphics company nor Advanced Graphics, inc company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc company nor Lick & Stick Graphics company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lick & Stick Graphics company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Advanced Graphics, inc company.

Advanced Graphics, inc company employs more people globally than Lick & Stick Graphics company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Advanced Graphics, inc nor Lick & Stick Graphics 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