Comparison Overview

BCM Inks

VS

The Artcraft Company

BCM Inks

161 Commerce Blvd, Loveland, Ohio, 45242, US
Last Update: 2025-12-12
Between 750 and 799

Since its inception in the United States in 1988, BCM Inks has been committed to improving the corrugated industry’s direct print capabilities through innovative and environmentally sensitive products, superior technical expertise, and technological advancement. BCM Inks works closely with educators and industry to further the advancement of value-added corrugated postprint. BCM Inks has achieved ISO 9001/2015 certification, is a Sony “Green Partner”, and is an innovator in the development of enhanced ink blending/color management systems.

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 28
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Artcraft Company

200 John L. Dietsch Blvd, North Attleboro, MA, 02763, US
Last Update: 2025-12-12
Between 750 and 799

Celebrating over 80 years, The Artcraft Company is recognized as a world-class leader in innovative and optimized print management, providing end-to-end, comprehensive printing and promotional product solutions to the leading financial, legal, consulting, manufacturing, retail, and design industries, large and small, across the globe. The most demanding firms have entrusted Artcraft to successfully execute print and promotional brand identity, wide-format printing, signage, corporate stationery programs, POD marketing collateral and campaigns, diverse specialty printing, inventory management, and custom integrated e-procurement solutions. Artcraft is proud of our ZERO CO2 Green initiative, reinforcing our company-wide commitment and pledge to reduce our environmental footprint through sustainable and socially responsible practices and procedures. Kindly tour us at artcraft.com

NAICS: 323
NAICS Definition: Printing and Related Support Activities
Employees: 35
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/bcm-inks.jpeg
BCM Inks
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/the-artcraft-company.jpeg
The Artcraft Company
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
BCM Inks
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Artcraft Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BCM Inks in 2025.

Incidents vs Printing Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Artcraft Company in 2025.

Incident History — BCM Inks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BCM Inks cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Artcraft Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Artcraft Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bcm-inks.jpeg
BCM Inks
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-artcraft-company.jpeg
The Artcraft Company
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Artcraft Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to BCM Inks company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Artcraft Company company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to BCM Inks company.

In the current year, The Artcraft Company company and BCM Inks company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Artcraft Company company nor BCM Inks company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Artcraft Company company nor BCM Inks company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Artcraft Company company nor BCM Inks company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BCM Inks company nor The Artcraft Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither BCM Inks company nor The Artcraft Company company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Artcraft Company company employs more people globally than BCM Inks company, reflecting its scale as a Printing Services.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BCM Inks nor The Artcraft Company 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