Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Angling Direct PLCAngling Direct PLC
VS
B&M RetailB&M Retail
Angling Direct PLC

Angling Direct PLC

Wendover Road, Norwich, NR13 6LH, GB

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
824/1000Good

Angling Direct is the largest specialist fishing tackle retailer in the UK. The Company principally sells fishing tackle products and related products through a network of 48 Angling Direct retail stores located in the UK and also online via its own website (www.angling...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:192
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
B&M Retail

B&M Retail

Estuary Commerce Park , Liverpool, Merseyside, GB, L24 8RJ

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
778/1000Fair

B&M is a fast-growing discount retailer, operating from over 750 high street and out of town stores across the UK, with a team of over 38,000! In the UK, we offer customers a broad range of FMCG brands and non-grocery products at sensational prices. Our aim is to prov...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:11,673
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Angling Direct PLC

Angling Direct PLC

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
B&M Retail

B&M Retail

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Angling Direct PLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for B&M Retail in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Angling Direct PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Angling Direct PLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - B&M Retail (X = Date, Y = Severity)

B&M Retail cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Angling Direct PLC

Angling Direct PLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ANG19081122
B&M Retail

B&M Retail

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Angling Direct PLC company and B&M Retail company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Angling Direct PLC and B&M Retail, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Angling Direct PLC and B&M Retail, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Angling Direct PLC or B&M Retail ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Angling Direct PLC or B&M Retail ?
Between Angling Direct PLC and B&M Retail, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Angling Direct PLC and B&M Retail, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2