Comparison Overview

Ancient House Printing Group

VS

Marfield, Inc.

Ancient House Printing Group

Hadleigh Road Industrial Estate, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP2 0HA, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ancienthouse.co.uk/

Ancient House Press is one of the UK's most established and experienced web and sheet-fed printers. We offer an exceptionally professional and competitive service and our commitment to ongoing technological investment ensures that our print and finishing facilities rival the very best in Europe. Our highly skilled team are proud to work with many organisations in the UK, our client sectors include publishing, retail, tourism, financial, central and local government. We promote and encourage positive environmental change with a progressive approach to recycling, energy conservation and waste management. Our customer service is about exceeding expectations, so whether we are printing millions of catalogues for a fashion retailer, or a few thousand calendars for a local Ipswich based business, we deliver the same expert care and attention. Ancient House Press operates from a modern factory in the centre of Ipswich, 1 hour 10mins from London's Liverpool St Station.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 38
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Marfield, Inc.

3333 Earhart Drive, Carrollton, Texas, 75006, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.marfield.com

Award-winning commercial printing company serving national client base with business cards and stationery products. Marfield is a certified woman-owned and operated business supporting clients in corporate America, governments, universities and the small business sector. Unparalleled in-house production capabilities, brand management services and online ordering set Marfield apart from its competition.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
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/ancient-house-press.jpeg
Ancient House Printing 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marfieldprint.jpeg
Marfield, 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
Ancient House Printing Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Marfield, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ancient House Printing Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marfield, Inc. in 2025.

Incident History — Ancient House Printing Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ancient House Printing Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ancient-house-press.jpeg
Ancient House Printing Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/marfieldprint.jpeg
Marfield, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ancient House Printing Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Marfield, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Marfield, Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Ancient House Printing Group company.

In the current year, Marfield, Inc. company and Ancient House Printing Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Marfield, Inc. company nor Ancient House Printing Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Marfield, Inc. company nor Ancient House Printing Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Marfield, Inc. company nor Ancient House Printing Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group company nor Marfield, Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group company nor Marfield, Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Ancient House Printing Group company employs more people globally than Marfield, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ancient House Printing Group nor Marfield, Inc. 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