Comparison Overview

Amway

VS

Reckitt

Amway

7575 Fulton Street East, None, Ada, Michigan, US, 49355
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Amway is a business owner-led health and wellbeing company based in Ada, Michigan, USA. It is committed to helping people live better, healthier lives across more than 100 markets and territories worldwide. Top-selling brands for Amway are Nutrilite™, Artistry™, and XS™ —all sold exclusively by entrepreneurs who are known as Amway Business Owners. Amway is the No.1 direct selling company in the world, according to the Direct Selling News Global 100, based on 2024 revenue. For company news, visit www.amwayglobal.com/newsroom/

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 21,117
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Reckitt

103-105 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire, GB, SL1 3UH
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

Every day, in everything we do, our purpose is to protect, heal and nurture in the relentless pursuit of a cleaner, healthier world. And we have a fight on our hands. A fight to make access to the highest quality hygiene, wellness and nourishment a right and not a privilege. Each of our products is designed to do exactly this. Our well-loved brands have been making a difference to people’s daily lives around the world for more than 200 years. Brands including: Durex, Dettol, Enfamil, Nurofen, Strepsils, Gaviscon, Mucinex, Nutramigen, Lysol, Harpic, Cillit Bang, Finish and Vanish. By 2030, our ambition is to reach half of the world, every year. We’re a growing global community of over 43,000 people on a journey of transformation and sustainable growth. Together, our success will continue to positively impact communities everywhere, for a healthier planet and a fairer society. Want to learn more about us? Visit reckitt.com

NAICS: 30
NAICS Definition: Manufacturing
Employees: 34,452
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amway.jpeg
Amway
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/reckitt.jpeg
Reckitt
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
Amway
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Reckitt
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amway in 2026.

Incidents vs Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Reckitt in 2026.

Incident History — Amway (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amway cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Reckitt (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Reckitt cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amway.jpeg
Amway
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/reckitt.jpeg
Reckitt
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Reckitt company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Amway company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Reckitt company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Amway company has not reported any.

In the current year, Reckitt company and Amway company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Reckitt company nor Amway company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Reckitt company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Amway company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Reckitt company nor Amway company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Amway company nor Reckitt company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Reckitt company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Amway company.

Reckitt company employs more people globally than Amway company, reflecting its scale as a Manufacturing.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Amway nor Reckitt holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N