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

Comparison Overview

BESTSELLERBESTSELLER
VS
SQ GroupSQ Group
BESTSELLER

BESTSELLER

Fredskovvej, Brande, undefined, DK-7330, DK

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://bestseller.com/
786/1000Fair

At BESTSELLER, we are more than 22,000 people in 38 different countries working for over 20 fashion brands such as ONLY, JACK & JONES, VERO MODA, NAME IT, SELECTED, VILA, PIECES, OBJECT, MAMALICIOUS, NOISY MAY and Y.A.S. We are a family-owned company with a strong found...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:14,881
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SQ Group

SQ Group

Concord IK Tower, Level 4, North Avenue, Gulshan 2 Dhaka, Dhaka 1212, BD

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sqgc.com
769/1000Fair

Q Collection, based in Singapore, is the parent company of the manufacturing entities collectively known as SQ Group in Bangladesh. As a leading global apparel manufacturing conglomerate, SQ is driven by a passion for innovation, sustainability, and excellence. With a r...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:10,001
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BESTSELLER

BESTSELLER

-
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
SQ Group

SQ Group

-
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 Apparel & Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BESTSELLER in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Apparel & Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SQ Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BESTSELLER (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BESTSELLER cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - SQ Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SQ Group 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...
BESTSELLER

BESTSELLER

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SQ Group

SQ Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8