Comparison Overview

Amber Signs & Print

VS

Shawmut Communications Group

Amber Signs & Print

59 Gossoms End, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, HP4 1DF, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ambersigns.com/

Welcome To Amber Signs & Print of Hertfordshire Amber Signs and Print is a well established Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire based business. We have experienced, skilled designers, graphic artists and fitters to look after all aspects of your of your project, from initial conception to final completion to the very highest standards. We pride ourselves on providing the full package for all sizes of company, whether it be branding and advertising for larger companies or complete corporate identity for new and fledgeling businesses, including fascias, vehicle livery and stationary. We aim to provide our expertise at very competitive prices and our portfolio shows our significant and diverse customer base, and why people keep coming back... Please take a minute to browse our website, and feel free to contact us for a quote.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Shawmut Communications Group

310 Jubilee Dr, Peabody, Massachusetts, 01960, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 700 and 749
http://www.shawmutdelivers.com

Shawmut Communications Group is where creativity unfolds. As the first SGP-certified printer in Massachusetts, we’re committed to working collaboratively with other printers, print buyers, suppliers, and supporting organizations to drive sustainable business practices. Founded in 1951—and now in our 3rd generation of family ownership—the Shawmut team has decades of experience. Every member of our team is committed to helping our clients achieve their goals—because when they succeed, we succeed. Visit www.ShawmutDelivers.com or call 978-762-7500 to learn more.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 51
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amber-signs-print.jpeg
Amber Signs & Print
—
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/shawmut-communications-group.jpeg
Shawmut Communications Group
—
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
Amber Signs & Print
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Shawmut Communications Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amber Signs & Print in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Shawmut Communications Group in 2025.

Incident History — Amber Signs & Print (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amber Signs & Print cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Shawmut Communications Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shawmut Communications Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amber-signs-print.jpeg
Amber Signs & Print
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/shawmut-communications-group.jpeg
Shawmut Communications Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Amber Signs & Print company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Shawmut Communications Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Shawmut Communications Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Amber Signs & Print company has not reported any.

In the current year, Shawmut Communications Group company and Amber Signs & Print company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Shawmut Communications Group company nor Amber Signs & Print company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Shawmut Communications Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Amber Signs & Print company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Shawmut Communications Group company nor Amber Signs & Print company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Amber Signs & Print company nor Shawmut Communications Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Amber Signs & Print company nor Shawmut Communications Group company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Shawmut Communications Group company employs more people globally than Amber Signs & Print company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Amber Signs & Print nor Shawmut Communications Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
References
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
References
Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
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
References
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Published
Date
2025-12-16
Updated
Date
2025-12-16
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
References