Comparison Overview
Best Buy

Best Buy
7601 Penn Ave South, Richfield, 55423-3645, US
Last Update: 04/04/2026
At Best Buy, our purpose is to enrich lives through technology. We do that by leveraging our unique combination of tech expertise and human touch to meet our customers’ everyday needs, whether they come to us online, visit our stores or invite us into their homes. With ...

Primark
PO BOX 644, Dublin, Dublin 1, IE
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Primark is an international fashion retailer employing more than 80,000 colleagues across 17 countries in Europe and the US. Founded in Ireland in 1969 under the Penneys brand, Primark aims to provide affordable choices for everyone, from great quality everyday essentia...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Best Buy







Primark






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
Best Buy has 46.24% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Primark in 2026.
Incident History - Best Buy (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Best Buy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Primark (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Primark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Best Buy

Primark
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the Alarm/Conditions wrapper when processing PublishResponse EventNotificationList data
- https://github.com/gff-cw/information/issues/18
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/S2OPC_Toolkit_1.7.3/src/ClientServer/address_space/sopc_event_manager.c
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/S2OPC_Toolkit_1.7.3/src/ClientServer/frontend/client_wrapper/alarm_conditions/libs2opc_client_alarm_conditions.c
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/S2OPC_Toolkit_1.7.3/src/ClientServer/frontend/client_wrapper/internal/state_machine.c
- https://gitlab.com/systerel/S2OPC/-/work_items/1781
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path
- https://github.com/gff-cw/information/issues/16
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/master/samples/ClientServer/client_wrapper/examples/subscribe.c
- https://github.com/systerel/S2OPC/blob/master/src/ClientServer/frontend/client_wrapper/internal/state_machine.c
- https://gitlab.com/systerel/S2OPC/-/work_items/1780
In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.
H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.
H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.