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

Comparison Overview

BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.ŞBİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş
VS
SpecsaversSpecsavers
BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş

BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş

Abdurrahmangazi Mah.Ebubekir Cad. No:73 Sancaktepe, İstanbul, TR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bim.com.tr
796/1000Fair

Türkiye’de perakende sektörünün lideri olan BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş., temel gıda ve tüketim malzemelerinin uygun fiyat ve yüksek kaliteyle tüketiciye ulaştırılması hedefiyle faaliyetlerine 1995 yılında 21 mağazayla başlamıştır. Yüksek indirim (hard-discount) modelini...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:13,526
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Specsavers

Specsavers

La Villiaize, St Andrews, Global, GB, GY6 8YP

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://join.specsavers.com
788/1000Fair

Specsavers began 40 years ago with the vision of two optometrists, Doug and Mary Perkins, who set out to provide best-value eyecare to everybody. Their passion for optometry has led Specsavers to become the largest privately-owned optical group in the world, deliverin...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:27,385
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş

BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş

-
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
Specsavers

Specsavers

-
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 BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Specsavers in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş 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 - Specsavers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Specsavers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş

BİM Birleşik Mağazalar A.Ş

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Specsavers

Specsavers

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
SPE205826323

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2